Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
10 April 2024
12 April 2024
Deletion requests on 11 April 2024

April 11[edit]

File:WorldHistoryDiscordRoles.png[edit]

The software is not CC- Wyslijp16 (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:MOJO 2 liters.jpg[edit]

Copyvio. The logo visible on the bottle is copyrighted. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a logic. So without the brand name how could readers understand the brand? Why don't you try to delete this similar Coca Cola image file too? There are many similar images in Wikipedia. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:15-09-26-RalfR-WLC-0098_-_Coca-Cola_glass_bottle_(Germany).jpg#mw-jump-to-license
Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Threshold of originality. This particular logo contains some complex graphics which pass Threshold of originality. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ludwigshafen-Mundenheim, St. Sebastian (14) (cropped).jpg[edit]

In the previous request Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of St. Sebastian (Ludwigshafen-Mundenheim) it was argued that the organ is in focus. I disagree, we primarily see architecture and stained glass windows here, and the organ is nearly de-minimis itself. No FOP, no permission. Krd 09:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep newly cropped version and delete previous revisions. The image is currently in use to illustrate the organ. The architectural elements and stained glass have now been removed. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Jiré Emine Gözen, Cyberpunk Symposium, ZKM Karlsruhe 02.jpg[edit]

Die abgebildete Person möchte, dass dieses Bild entfernt wird. Visible Artists (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Erstens haben wir keinen Beleg, dass dies wirklich zutrifft (könnte jeder behaupten), und zweitens ist das Bild offensichtlich bei einem öffentlichen Auftritt entstanden. Da muss man damit rechnen, fotografiert zu werden. Wende dich gegebenenfalls an COM:VRT. PaterMcFly (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiré Emine Gözen 03.jpg[edit]

Die abgebildete Person möchte, dass dieses Bild entfernt wird. Visible Artists (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiré Emine Gözen, Cyberpunk Symposium, ZKM Karlsruhe.jpg[edit]

Die abgebildete Person möchte, dass dieses Bild entfernt wird. Visible Artists (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiré Emine Gözen 04.jpg[edit]

Die abgebildete Person möchte, dass dieses Bild entfernt wird. Visible Artists (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiré Emine Gözen, ZKM Karlsruhe.jpg[edit]

Die abgebildete Person möchte, dass dieses Bild entfernt wird. Visible Artists (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiré Emine Gözen.jpg[edit]

Die abgebildete Person möchte, dass dieses Bild entfernt wird. Visible Artists (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiré Emine Gözen, ZKM Karlsruhe, 2022.jpg[edit]

Die abgebildete Person möchte, dass dieses Bild entfernt wird. Visible Artists (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio! 186.172.125.139 14:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiré Emine Gözen spricht im ZKM Karlsruhe.jpg[edit]

Die abgebildete Person möchte, dass dieses Bild entfernt wird. Visible Artists (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio! 186.172.125.139 14:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiré Emine Gözen 01.jpg[edit]

Die abgebildete Person möchte, dass dieses Bild entfernt wird. Visible Artists (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio! 186.172.125.139 14:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toy Cast Iron Horse Drawn Ice Wagon.jpg[edit]

Wrong license tag: This toy is not 2D. Maybe, it should be {{PD-author}}, but unsure. Ankry (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader seems to have confused the license of the picture with the license of the object depicted (which is sometimes confusing). Looks like the image is freely licensed (by the museum) and the object is PD due to its age. PaterMcFly (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably. But is anybody willing to fix this? Note: the "Copyright undetermined" note make me doubt if this is really free. Ankry (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That indeed needs someone who has a better understanding of whether the linked license from the museum is sufficient for commons. They make a lot of reservations, for which again it is not really clear whether they impact the image or the object. PaterMcFly (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The old toy is Public Domain (PD) as it is over 100 years old from the Museum's information. The photo is intended to be Public Domain, so the "PD-author" tag looks good. Also, @PaterMcFly, should this same tag be added to the other 74 photos of antique toys in this category? Category:Toys in the Missouri History Museum
@Ankry, the link to "Copyright Undetermined" is related to the object (toy). Quote:
The copyright and related rights status of this Item has been reviewed by the organization that has made the Item available, but the organization was unable to make a conclusive determination as to the copyright status of the Item. Please refer to the organization that has made the Item available for more information. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use."
I agree with PaterMcFly who wrote, "... the object is PD due to its age." Ankry, you wrote, "the "Copyright undetermined" note make me doubt if this is really free." If we determine the "item" or object is Public Domain, then the quote above supports that it is free. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what is the copyright status of the photo, not the object. Modern photos of PD non-2D objects are copyrighted. Copyright in most cases belongs to the photographer. Do we have an evidence of free license? Ankry (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giumaiolini - Partial Solar Eclipse - Brazil - 2007 (by).jpg[edit]

Scaled-down dupe of File:Partial Solar Eclipse - Brazil - 2007 (1363366141).jpg A1Cafel (talk) 11:23, 11 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:4-Didare Rabari Ba Basijian.jpg[edit]

File obtained from Leader.ir, which is not freely-licensed HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2023 (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:4-Didare Rabari Ba Basijian.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by POS78 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:4-Didare Rabari Ba Basijian.jpg[edit]

This file is soured from Leader.ir, which is not freely-licensed. It was deleted once and seems to be re-uploaded again. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jasmine Rae - Heartbeat (Official Music Video).webm[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Champion as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Copyvio, uploader does not appear to represent copyright holder Prototyperspective (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep (The user reverted my removal of the speedy DR pls make a normal deletion request if any: the youtube channel is "The Official Youtube channel for [...] Jasmine Rae") Prototyperspective (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you don't think my rationale does not meet the speedy deletion criteria per COM:CSD section F1? Champion (Talk) 12:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, like I said, the youtube channel that uploaded the video with the CCBY license is the official Youtube channel for Jasmine Rae. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant, unless the uploader of this file can prove they are associated with Jasmine Rae in some way. Champion (Talk) 13:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep https://www.jasminerae.com/videos embeds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a4RKrJO01A which is the file in question here, and which on YouTube has a CC-BY license. Additionally, https://www.jasminerae.com/ has a link to https://www.youtube.com/jasminerae1 and https://www.youtube.com/jasminerae1 lists the handle as @JasmineRaeMusic which matches this video. Dhx1 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case the official website https://www.jasminerae.com is in question, the label stated is ABC Music and their official page for the album at https://www.abc.net.au/abcmusic/jasmine-rae-heartbeat/13923958 also embeds the file in question here, and this embedded YouTube file has the CC-BY license on YouTube. Dhx1 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This states the album is copyrighted, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Champion (Talk) 01:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright owners can release work under multiple licenses at different points in time. Perhaps when the album was first released, there was only an agreement in place with ABC Music to be the exclusive distributor for CD sales and online digital music shops with no ability to grant other licenses, for a period of X years, with Y% royalties paid back to the copyright owner(s). Later on, one track of that album is then separately released by the copyright owner(s) with a CC-BY license on the official YouTube channel, hypothetically to try and increase brand awareness, market the remainder of the album, market a new album, market a tour, etc. By releasing a single track with a CC-BY license, the copyright owner(s) may have hoped that famous YouTuber's would reuse the music on their videos watched by millions of people, and some subset of those viewers using the -BY condition of the license then seek out the source of the music to find other similar (non CC-BY) music they can purchase, or discover that there is an upcoming tour they can purchase tickets for. Dhx1 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is just hypothetical, until it is proven by the creator and the copyright holder, it doesn't matter. Champion (Talk) 02:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is hypothetical about the official website *and* the label both embedding and linking to the exact video in question that is CC-BY licensed on YouTube? Dhx1 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even need that since we can infer that a channel that clearly appears to be the official channel and uploads new videos of the artist with that video having that license for a long time is indeed the official channel and indeed deliberately licensed that video that way. Somebody would need to provide at a minimum indications that this isn't the case for such a DR to make sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucile Saint-Simon.jpg[edit]

Bad scan and probably studio photo under copyright, not a personal work Voxhominis (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:3Y5A7913+ Nathalie Marchak.tif[edit]

Copyright 186.172.155.136 13:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scan the World - Gayer Anderson Cat, British Museum.stl[edit]

the license at the source is BY-NC-SA, not CCBYSA and thus WMC-incompatible; please change it Prototyperspective (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Alex Blokha (talk · contribs)[edit]

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bernard Gauducheau - photo officielle.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gyrostat as no source (No source since), whilst the file appears to be in good resolution and rightly uploaded as own work. ─ Aafī (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader is a single-purpose account, on Commons as well as on fr-wp, which username is translated as "Mayor's office". The author is not identified and its permission is not provided. Gyrostat (talk) 10:14, 23 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:Modirahul.jpg[edit]

What is the purpose of this comparison pictures? These are two different individuals. They are not gay, not a married couple. Why are two pictures pinned together? Who are the copyright owners of these two different pictures and then combined together to form one single image. The owner of the picture is not the copyright owner of the two images or even one image being made. There is a political vendetta and image falsification. This is against Wikipedia and WIkimedia rules and regulations. Please delete this image if copyright information has not been provided. Thanks. 122.171.23.43 21:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep. In use, copyright is documented at the source Flickr page. It is, in fact, possible for two men to appear in the same photograph without being a married couple. Please stop making disruptive deletion nominations for photos of these people (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:RahulModi.jpg). Omphalographer (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modirahul.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Shaan Sengupta as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The image of right is available on Wikipedia under different author and license with VRT permission. Can't be termed own work just by making a collage type. See File:Rahul Gandhi.jpg. The image on left is also on Commons. Yann (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original images may be or may not be free, we don't know, but it is unlikely that Global Panorama is the author. We need the source of each original images. Yann (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete One thing is confirm that Global Panorama can't be the author since both the images come from different sources. Also the image of left (Modi's) is from Modi's Flicker and on right (Rahul's) is allowed after VRT permission. When orginal images are seen, one was uploaded under 3.0 and other under 2.0. Then how can the uploader release it under a single license and claim that it is their work. If I take two images from internet and combine them or make a collage, that doesn't mean that I get the rights. ShaanSenguptaTalk 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Faye Faire's In My Mind Album Artwork.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: Music album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Gustavo sabatini en una presentación en el Teatro Municipal.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr waheed samir وحيد سمير math supervisor in shobban schools.jpg[edit]

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:شابان يستمتعان بقراءة صحيفة الرياض السعودية.jpg[edit]

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PYC-A1 1.jpg[edit]

Out of scope. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Useful drawing of technical object. Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Please explain its specific educational significance? Or what topics do you think this image would be used for? Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This is a drawing of a contact that's used in relays. It is significant in the field of electrical engineering. Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heizer 4 Part Circle.JPG[edit]

copyvio; living artist, no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Radio-Augsburg.jpg[edit]

Das Logo ist das allererste, das der Radiosender benutzt hat. Mittlerweile sieht das Logo ganz anders aus, dieses hier erscheint aber bei Google noch ganz oben David das klar ist (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep Not a reason for deletion, we keep historic logos. --Rosenzweig τ 06:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be removed from Google's index so that it no longer appears in searches? David das klar ist (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask Google. --Rosenzweig τ 07:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Храм в честь Преображения Господня Вершилово.jpg[edit]

Non-free photo. The file isn't on the linked source page, but it can be found on https://chkalovblago.ru/xram-v-chest-preobrazheniya-gospodnya-s-vershilovo/. That page says nothing about any free licence, though. There's a watermark on the image, "© DmitryPonomarev.ru", which disagrees with the claimed author. A higher-resolution version of the picture can be found on http://dmitryponomarev.ru/%d1%86%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%ba%d0%be%d0%b2%d1%8c-%d0%bf%d1%80%d0%b5%d0%be%d0%b1%d1%80%d0%b0%d0%b6%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%8f-%d0%b3%d0%be%d1%81%d0%bf%d0%be%d0%b4%d0%bd%d1%8f-%d0%b2-%d0%b2%d0%b5%d1%80%d1%88/. The footer of that page says "Коммерческое использование фотоматериалов сайта запрещено без предварительного разрешения", which Google Translate renders as "Commercial use of photographic materials from the site is prohibited without prior permission". That's incompatible with COM:L. bjh21 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/David Bowie Blackstar[edit]

Per COM:TOO, as a work which originates and was designed by a UK artist (Jonathan Barnbrook), it would be bound to the Threshold of Originality of the UK - which is very low. I see the file is already on En Wiki as Files ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries here. It states do not copy to Commons. Seems the've flown under the rader, cover should be deleted from Commons and kept as-is on EnWiki.

PascalHD (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Probable copyright violation. A variety of professional photos of a rock group. All are tagged as "own work", but Exif metadata suggests multiple authors. File:Pablo montoya 3.jpg, File:Testigo 16.jpg, File:Testigo 17.jpg, and File:Testigo 23.jpg have camera model "Canon EOS 6D" and author "Luis Martinez Perez". File:Testigo 21.jpg has author "GSIFotografia". File:Pablo montoya.jpg has author "EY!ColectivoGrafico-Tute Delacro". File:Benjamin Ledesma testigo.jpg, File:Marcelo matos.jpg, File:Pablo montoya 1.jpg, and File:Pablo montoya 2.jpg have camera model "NIKON D7500". File:Testigo 08.jpg, File:Testigo 09.jpg, and File:Testigo 10.jpg have camera model "NIKON D850". File:Benjamin Ledesma.jpg, File:Pablo Montoya.jpg, and File:Testigo 03.jpg have camera model "NIKON D7100". That's four different cameras across two makes, and three different author names. I think the user's other uploads should be deleted as a precaution. Apart from these pictures, the uploader's only other contributions to Wikimedia projects are 1 reverted edit and 147 deleted edits on Wikidata.

bjh21 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Las fotografias son de mi autoria y tengo mas fotos e información para agregar sobre este artista y muchos mas. Gracias Vmfpablo (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scotland v Argentina (48154600941).jpg[edit]

Parc des Princes opened in 1972. It was done by architects en:Roger Taillibert (1926-2019) and en:Siavash Teimouri (still living, born 1937) and France has no commericial FOP so we cannot keep this photograph unfortunately. Abzeronow (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Substantzia ezberdinen mol bana 2.png[edit]

The original Flickr uploader credits a different photographer than what the metadata on Flickr says the photographer is. The Flickr page looks like license laundering to me. Abzeronow (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the original uploader of the image. I took it from flickr and edited it, thinking that it was under creative commons. If there are licensing problems please delete it. Julen Artano (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TEC Extinguisher.jpg[edit]

Not an accurate representation of this type of extinguisher. This is a replica, not the real deal. May give people bad information. Firetech117 (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: The file is in use on el:Πυροσβεστήρας and en:Fire extinguisher and therefore should not be deleted simply for being inaccurate (see COM:NPOV). @Firetech117, if the current description is incorrect it would be best for you to update it (and ask for the file to be renamed if the filename is also incorrect). --bjh21 (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/04/11&oldid=872187516"