Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
8 April 2024
10 April 2024
Deletion requests on 9 April 2024

April 9[edit]

File:Coat of arms of Christopher Coyne, Coadjutor Archbishop of Hartford 2.png[edit]

Incorrect editing. Linestamp (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it and why can't it be fixed? You can just upload a new version. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Selfie with Plainrock124.jpg[edit]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing here. Where do I submit proof of consent to upload this photo? TansoShoshen (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TansoShoshen: see COM:VRT, thanks -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT).→ VRT

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Liang (2023).jpg[edit]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I submit proof of consent to upload this photo? TansoShoshen (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norodom Suramarit.jpg[edit]

Anonymous work from Cambodia has a copyright length of 75 years A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norodom Suramarit (crop).jpg[edit]

Anonymous work from Cambodia has a copyright length of 75 years A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Statues of Douglas MacArthur, Jayu Park, Incheon[edit]

Per COM:FOP SK, there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea for sculptures. This statue of Douglas MacArthur was completed in 1957 by Kim Kyung-soong (김경승, 1915–1992). It is protected by copyright until 2063

✗plicit 03:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commons:Upload campaigns[edit]

This page claims to list "photo competitions and other upload campaigns" but in fact lists nothing. Perhaps it would do fine merging into the UploadWizard campaign functionality page? Bedivere (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Tavola Mural - Baltimore.jpg[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:London (40413064153).jpg[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per COM:GRAFFITI obvious case of paste up graffiti Oxyman (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poster, not graffiti. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is both see Street_poster_art and Glossary_of_graffiti #paste-up Oxyman (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The graffiti (or poster or artwork - what have you) might be COM:DW of other copyrightable artworks. COM:PRP-leaning to  Delete here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Cade Stiles (talk · contribs)[edit]

Copyright violation? All three photographs were not made by the uploader (they have different names), the source is unclear (red link) and I do not see a VRT ticket.

JopkeB (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Elbphilharmonie[edit]

There is no FoP for interior views in Germany. Quote of FoP Germany. In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance.[74] Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under § 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met.[75]

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:1998 - 'Envol de la compagnie ailée' - Étude de M-C Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998 - 'Haut de la Rue Jerzual à Dinan' - Marie-Claire Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998 - 'Japonaises en promenade' - Étude de M-C Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998 - 'La chapelle blanche des tropiques' - Étude de Marie-Claire Lefébure (1).jpg[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998 - 'Le Chaton' - Marie-Claire Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998 - 'Le Lapereau' - Marie-Claire Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998 - 'Les Pierres du Diable à Forrières' - Marie-Claire Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998 - 'Paysage d'Hiver en Amérique' - Étude de Marie-Claire Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998 - 'Tête de cheval' - Étude réalisée par Marie-Claire Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I see well, all these watercolors by Marie-Claire Lefébure have been uploaded by User:Marie-Claire, who according to what she said about herself is a Belgian lady in her seventies. I suppose she's actually the author of the watercolors, so the license is correct. The point is if we need or not these paintings on Commons. Is she a relevant artist or is it self-promotion? --Kaho Mitsuki (Dis-moi) 09:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to what she says in her website, she's an amateur artist [1]. The files should be deleted for out of Commons:Project scope.--Kaho Mitsuki (Dis-moi) 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998 Cécile - Rouge Cloître.jpg[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999 - 'La Moisson' - Marie-Claire Lefébure.jpg[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999 -10 Jun au 10 Jul - Expo International Library 1 - M-C Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999 -10 Jun au 10 Jul - Expo International Library 3 - M-C Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999-01-21 - 'Mademoiselle Pauline de Rigaud' - Marie-Claire Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999-01-27 - 'Chassepierre et la Semois' - Marie-Claire Lefébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999-02-02 - 'La Ferme de Basseille à Mozet' Marie-Claire Léfébure.JPG[edit]

Marie-Claire Lefébure is not dead since more than 70 years (was still painting in 2000). Therefore not PD-old and not in public domain. No authurisation given Zen 38 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of VitraHaus[edit]

There is FoP for interior views in Germany. The architects of the VitraHaus are still alive.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of VitraHaus

Same as above

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of the Kirchner Museum[edit]

There is no FoP for interior views in Switzerland, its architect is sill alive.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep how are the individual work? Not all interior views in Switzerland are protected by copyright! It muss be a individual Work. It is a good, diffused, illuminated museum show room a individual work? I say no. And this photos are take at during a official GLAM event with a permission of the museum. --Bobo11 (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here the link to FoP Switzerland, where you see that no interior views are permitted. The architects are Annette Gigon and Mike Guyer who are both still alive. In Switzerland there exists a standard of life + 70 years. Under the Swiss copyright law art. 2 works of architecture are protected by copyright. @IronGargoyle It's not about the artwork, which if it's from Kirchner is anyway in the Public Domain, but about the architecture and the interior views. Exterior appearances are permitted by FoP, interiors not. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How part interior are copyright? Only individual work can became a Copyright. Not all part of a building also a part of individual architecture. No FoP say not no Fotos from inside of a new constructed house. No FoP say only, no Photos from copyright Interior ore Photos from a copyrighted part of architecture. So you can give en exemplar what the copyrighted part of this withe rooms are. You can't? Then it the „no FoP inside“ also not a Problem. When you can't see a copyrighted architecture part on the Pictures, than there are no reason to deleted this photos. Bobo11 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo11 Mit deinem Englisch kann es zu einigen Missverständnissen kommen. Kannst deine Argumente auch gerne auch Deutsch kommunizieren. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FoP Switzerland, Paradise Chronicle, is in my opinion already perfectly clear. When it comes to threshold of originality questions, there is always some subjectivity in the discussion which no update of a FoP page can prevent. I know of some people here who would almost never see creativity in simple modern interior architecture, and others who do. This is not a matter of the rules, but of individual interpretation of the rules. For this kind of discussion, we have no hard and fast "if given A, then B". Allow me to comment on the examples you cited, as I took a look at the deleted pictures:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:LAC Lugano: Quite striking, characteristic interior architecture, deletion was right.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Basel Tinguely museum interior ramp.JPG: Another striking picture that shows architecture typical for the architect Mario Botta. Rightly deleted as well.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:GLADIATOR. THE TRUE STORY - Exhibition at Basel Museum of Ancient Art and Ludwig Collection (Ank Kumar) 07.jpg: Shown are postcards with, apparently, mostly ancient art, but in modern photographs of 3D objects. I agree with deletion.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Exposition au MCBA 04.jpg: Modern art in the exhibition. I wouldn't have deleted for the interior architecture (too plain), but for the artworks visible.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA museum, Zurich 08.jpg: Copyrighted trophy (deletion is OK), not about architecture.
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fondation Beyeler: In this case, I disagree with some of the deletions. For example, File:Riehen BS Fondation Beyeler Ausstellung Claude Monet 2017 IV.jpg shows only visitors viewing public domain paintings by Monet in a standard museum room. In this case, I agree with what IronGargoyle wrote there: "The building as a whole may be a creative architectural work, but simple individual gallery room walls are not". That is also my firm opinion: You don't look at these walls and say "Oh yes, that's a Renzo Piano". Every building, also by famous architects, contains plain rooms that have no artistic character. I feel reminded of the "perpetual" case of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Harpa (concert hall) - over time (you can expand the older discussions there) I have nominated many, many files of views of this concert hall in Iceland for deletion (also exterior views, as Iceland has no Commons-compatible FoP whatsoever), but notably, in the June 2023 request several images that contained mainly plain(ish) interiors were kept, and though I wouldn't have seen them all as plain enough, I can accept that. - As we're discussing Holly's recent Beyeler decision among others, a ping to User:Holly Cheng as well for information. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your time to double check the deleted files. For me there are still some things to clarify. First plain walls are not just plain walls if they are described to be the plain walls of a certain museum. Or categorized as such. Then also ToO Switzerland says Swiss copyright law defines works as "literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose". I understand from this that every artistic creation is copyrightable, also plain walls from a certain building. Architecture works a lot with the distribution of light, for which the Kirchner Museum was also famous for, specially for the ceiling, which is depicted on most of the files in the DR. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradise Chronicle: Thank you, too, for engaging in a level-headed and considerate discussion. - I think you're misunderstanding the situation a bit, and would like to emphasize the "individual character" wording from the copyright law. The originality and copyright protection of a work doesn't carry over to every individual part of the work; copyright protection is created by the work as a whole, and whether partial depictions still contain something copyrighted depends upon what is being shown. I'll try to explain what I mean by two non-architectural examples: Take a copyrighted novel. That novel contains the sentence "She opened the door". You are absolutely free to reproduce that sentence from the novel, because the isolated sentence has no individual character and the words "She opened the door" appear in many works. A whole paragraph from the novel that shows characteristics of the author's style, however, would be copyrighted. Or let's for a moment assume File:Julius Caesar (Museo del Prado E-378) 01.jpg were a still copyrighted work by a modern artist (it isn't, it's from the 16th century). You would be free to distribute depictions of only the pedestal, because it's a generic shape often seen in pedestals of busts, no creative work in itself. - Likewise, if you depict an absolutely standard boxy, white museum room that isn't really distinguishable from other museum rooms, there's nothing copyrighted in this picture, even if the museum building itself is protected by copyright. - Having said all that, I do not want to simply dismiss your argument that the ceiling's design / lighting might be copyrightable. Personally, I still think it's probably not, but given the "Im Zauberlicht" article you cite, I can see that one could assess this differently. If the admin processing this request comes to the conclusion that the special lighting is too much of a copyright problem, I certainly can live with that. But I would then strongly emphasize that this shouldn't be used as a precedent to delete images of public domain artworks hanging on nondescript modern museum walls. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection if someone wants to create a UDR for those files. —holly {chat} 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, except for some of the Fondation Beyeler images, I think the deletions were in order, but I don't feel strongly enough about it for a UDR. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I expand a bit on the light. That the ceiling is transparent in a museum became to be special in the 19th century. But since Davos has a snowy winter not the same solution was needed and therefore the light does not directly come vertically, but diagonally through windows in the walls. Also the transparent part would usually not reach the very end of the walls since it would have led the frames of the paintings to provide shade on to them. But Gigon/Guyer architects wanted the transparent part to reach the end of walls chose a special sort of glass that would allow enough light for the paintings but not for the shades of the frames and eventually also compelled the light specialist. (Im Zauberlicht, p.10, its the link of the phrase, in the same paragraph is also the other info) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You write „That the ceiling is transparent in a museum became to be special in the 19th century.“, You understood what this means? >The transparent ceiling can not decrease under copyright. The ceiling are not a new innovation, it is an old technology to illuminate rooms with soft daylight. Yes on the roof and in construction can give elements how can be covered by patents/copyright. But, can you sea one of this copyrighted element on this photo? No. When you cant sea a covered items on this photos, in succession no problem with “no FoP for interior views in Switzerland”. Bobo11 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To spin your phrase a bit further, do you want to suggest that transparent windows in a building are not anymore copyrightable? @Bobo11 answering to your question if I can see one of the copyrighted elements in this photo (I guess the plural form was meant here). Yes, for example that the transparent ceiling extends to the ends of the walls. Further specialities of the building are described in a monograph on the museum. Still I strongly believe we are not able and also not required to describe all the originalities/specialities of an artwork/building for which I believe in the Swiss Copy Right Law the phrase works are literary and artistic intellectual creations with individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose exists. And straight underneath that phrase are the listed works which include works of architecture. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The transparent ceiling are not new and unique architecture elements, and hi gives a lot of Museums with of them (Google “Tageslichtdecke”). This is not the one characteristic detail from structure of the Kirchner Museum Davos or from creations of architecture firm Gigon / Guyer. It is aktuell more or less the standard design from art gallerys (if you can work with daylight). Why you means, standard design can protected by copyright? Standard is an the opposite of individual. But from a protected by copyright, is individual work the basic requirement. No individual work = no protection by copyright. And in the end, no protection by copyright = no requirement to must have a FoP Rule.-Bobo11 (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, none of the ceilings reach the end of the walls. And it is an individual work if the file is a recognizable part of an individual (a specified) work. And the files are categorized within the category Kirchner Museum, so the files are a recognizable part of a specific work. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean-Marc Luisada and Congyu Wang.jpg[edit]

Sans utilité d'un point de vue éducatif 176.162.58.203 09:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sans utilité d'un point de vue éducatif 176.162.58.203 09:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1978 Fietsersbond poster propaganda for Stop de kindermoord movement.png[edit]

Copyright violation. The poster dates from 1978, so not in the Public domain yet. Posters are not permanent in the public space, so no FOP. I do not see a VRT ticket either. JopkeB (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trypophloeus populi bark beetle.jpg[edit]

I’m not seeing any evidence of a CC-Zero license at the source. There is a little note that the site is supported by the US Forestry Service, but as far as I can tell, it is not government work or otherwise in the public domain. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It states "This image is the property of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., used under CC0 license" right underneath the image on the source page. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tantu beats interview 2024.jpg[edit]

no permission from given author in metadata which clearly states "Author Videographer: Aaron McMurtry Copyright holder Copyright: 2013" Hoyanova (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in contact with the artist/photographer of this picture and they have released this on CC CC0 1.0 Universal so it should be good to go? What should be done to make this allowed to stay? Definiteassembly117 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author and photographed it together with my partner. The accurate credits should be:
Author Videographer: Brenda Narvaez Copyright holder Copyright: 2024"
I'll gladly change this if needed! Supertje123 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Exif data about Aaron McMurtry 2013 was Exif data that apparently was tied to the camera that was used. It's incorrect and as I said, the correct data should be: Author Videographer: Brenda Narvaez Copyright holder, Copyright: 2024. Supertje123 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AnneJoliot.jpg[edit]

this vidéo is protected by "droit d'auteur" - not free https://www.canal-u.tv/conditions-generales-utilisations Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vous vous trompez. Cette photo a certes été prise le même jour que le tournage de la vidéo Canal-U (chaîne cultureGnum) https://www.canal-u.tv/chaines/culturegnum/temoignages-d-anne-et-pierre-joliot-institut-de-biologie-physico-chimique. Si les vidéos obéissent en effet en droit d'auteurs à l'URL que vous indiquez, les photos sont prises de manière tout à fait indépendante, dans le cadre de l'association que je préside, responsable de cette chaîne. Je suis moi-même indépendant de Canal-U, responsable de cette chaîne cultureGnum, et il se trouve que parfois, nous utilisons dans le cadre de Canal-U des photos que nous avons prises. Conformément à ce qui précède, j'ai mis cette photo moi-même sur WikiCommons en cc-by-sa. Merci de laisser cette photo, dont je me porte garant. Arrakis (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[suite] ce que décrit très bien la phrase suivante, extraite des conditions générales d'utilisation que vous donnez ci-dessus (https://www.canal-u.tv/conditions-generales-utilisations) : "Par conséquent, elle [FMSH |Canal-U] n’est pas cessionnaire des droits sur les Contenus." Arrakis (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arrakis: Bonjour, L'auteur mentionné est Quentin Censier. Merci de vérifier votre identité via COM:VRT/fr. Yann (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Il n'y a pas lieu de faire cela. J'ai indique l'auteur de la photo, parce qu'on indique toujours l'auteur, mais c'est dans le cadre de son contrat avec notre structure cultureGnum, propriétaire des images, que je préside et mets sur WikiCommons (facture QC et courriel du 23 octobre 2021). C'est exactement comme ici (Pete Souza) ou, plus près de nous, là. --Arrakis (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:12 Q di cuori.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Di (they-them) as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 16:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Reformierte Kirche Birmenstorf[edit]

copyvio; contemp. artworks; no fop.

Martin Sg. (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cumbaca.jpg[edit]

Sorry my bad English... This file contain a draw from Christian Lütken (in public domain: file:Franciscodoras marmoratus - Lütken 1875.png) but... the photo was reuploaded in minor resolution! User made only this upload, with Portuguese errors in description. So, in doubt, I submit here. Tks. André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by JOGOS Public Assets (talk · contribs)[edit]

No realistic educational use, random AI-generated shapes and images of that nature

Nutshinou Talk! 22:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full support of the deletion of these files, they were of greater value when AI was in the developing stage. JOGOS Public Assets (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by JOGOS Public Assets (talk · contribs)[edit]

Does not seem educationally useful

Nutshinou Talk! 22:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These files are examples of organic corruption of these various file formats. They serve an educational use by providing insight into the results of the corruption of the files, and the inner workings of the file formats that lead to the results seen in the corruption. The JPEG's corruption provides knowledge on the means by which the image is subdivided, and how bit flips can lead to results that elucidate these subdivisions. The corruption of the two GIF files provide insight into the ways the animation system can break down when interacting with abnormal data. JOGOS Public Assets (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar case at Commons:Undeletion_requests#File:Testxss.gif where a file was deleted because "Random demonstrations of tech stuff is not in Commons' scope." although the undeletion request hasn't reached consensus yet Nutshinou Talk! 08:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rep Louise Slaughter.jpg[edit]

This is a lower quality version of File:Louise Slaughter official portrait, 109th congress.jpg; it should be redirected to that image. They are the exact same resolution, but the other file has a larger file size, and zooming in on it reveals it has a bit more fine detail. The only remaining uses of this photo are automatically-generated pages based on Wikidata; now that I have replaced the photo on Wikidata, they should disappear soon. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/04/09&oldid=875533289"