Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/02

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo, talk page and INUSE suggest that it could be below threshhold of originality Sadads (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, background may be above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The file is a cropped version - limited to the title text - from the cover of italian DVD disc 2 (you can see the cover here: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71yTDrEVebL._SL1164_.jpg); I don't think that the background - a grassy background - it's a violation of rules, but I will comply with the community's decision. --Bradipo Lento (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Bradipo Lento the little bit of the background visible to the user, isn't enough to depicth the originality inherent in the design, Sadads (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative of copyrighted packaging and instructions.

• File:Nintendo Vs System - Hockey 02.jpg

Contains non-copyrightable portion, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep 01;  Delete 02. The drawings are de minimis in the first photo, just as they are in File:Commodore TV Game 2000K.jpg (which we use as an example in COM:DM!). The closeup of those drawings in the second photo is not DM. Omphalographer (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Este artículo de prensa es de mi autoría. La fotografía de la portada la saqué de Google. Oscar Seidel (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope: unused fictional election apportionment diagram, wrong number of seats, a correct image is at File:2021 Upper Austrian state election - composition chart.svg. 2003:E5:373E:7600:2919:3557:6D20:AB7 00:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just migrated this from enwiki, but given source is http://www.finglasashbourne.ie/progress_images/progress_rd4.jpg. The URL is dead now, but likely copyvio. Rschen7754 01:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a professionally taken photo with no indication it was set to open access. It appears here [1]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the file I uploaded was double Nafisathallah (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Own photograph, regretfully per COM:FOP South Korea. Apparently built between 1986 and 1996. Maybe the whole Category:Mireuk Daebul, Bongeunsa should be deleted (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Category:Mireuk Daebul, Bongeunsa) -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Unfortunate, but our hands are tied, and the non-commercial requirement in South Korea's FOP laws seems clear based on COM:FOP South Korea. I agree that the other images in the category will likely need to be deleted, as the statue isn't incidental in any of them.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SCREENSHOT DanielPenfield (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this file can exict considering Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Nations and OHCHR being created after 1987. Even if it can exist, it is not "own work" as it clearly originates from the UN-owned logo. Vanyka-slovanyka (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a non-free image--Commons only accepts free-to-use media. Uploader is unlikely to have the original or its 18th century copies in his or her possession from which he or she could have produced a digital facimile--see Physical history of the United States Declaration of Independence. Google image search says this image is an exact duplicate of the one appearing at [2] DanielPenfield (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused AI-generated nonsense diagram full of garbled text. AI image models are, as a whole, not very good at diagrams. Omphalographer (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as gibberish. Belbury (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Rubin16 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 04:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Kharkivian as no permission (No permission since) Krd 05:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The person who is on photo and uploader's nickname are the same. So, it looks like a copyright violation. --Kharkivian (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as {{PD-old-50}}, but without explanation why that should be true (the photo's given date is 1969, and the source provided doesn't say it is public domain). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look into this and come back. Whizz40 (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was Uploaded for an article which was denied. Since there is no article it is not necessary to have the picture uploaded. Please delete KrsitinaB (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio from https://doughie.be/shop/?_gl=1*e71nve*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTA4OTA0NjA4LjE3Mjc4NDkyNDM.*_ga_T2T9XGPCQC*MTcyNzg0OTI0MC4xLjAuMTcyNzg0OTI0MC4wLjAuMTE4OTAwNTYyNw.. - used for advertising content spam article on nl-wiki as well Hoyanova (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blogger Selfi more usefule for Instagram Wikitarisch (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason for deletion. --2001:4652:FBAF:0:81BA:5C6:F555:F8E4 19:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: In use on 6 projects. --Achim55 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:

- Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on.

- Advertising or self-promotion.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#in_use Wikitarisch (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like the image is being used in a promotional manner. It may have been intended as promo, but it looks like the blogger is unnotable enough that Wikipedians are just treating the photo like a nice stockphoto to depict activities of climbers on the depicted mountain. I'd agree with how it's used. It's an interesting photo and looks good enough to be used as a generic stockphoto. The promo part failed anyway.  Keep Nakonana (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:330-ps-9224-usn-1036187 15052972403 o.jpg Gildir (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Same size of pixelmal but different junk metadata (no need to host stupid advertizing for stupid Adobe or stupid Apple at Commons anyway), and different pixelmap, one of them is brighter. No obvious verdict about which one is better. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small image, no exif data. The other images from this user were copyvio. Ovruni (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Selfi, but no information value Wikitarisch (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• COM:INUSE, but unless User:Losepp is Franz Trimmel, this is copyright violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo look like it was brought somewhere else..? YeBoy371 (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source of photo below: https://x.com/Vliveofficial/status/1036820522409967616 YeBoy371 (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyright violation. Low resolution and lack of EXIF data. COM:VRT is necessary. S8321414 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not {{PD-US}} as claimed. Source give is "I was given it to use by the owner to use for their Wikipedia article i have created". VRT permission from the photographer is needed to verify copyright. MKFI (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image looks like screenshot or crop from an unknown source. MKFI (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected copyright violation: file EXIF shows "Copyright holder AkiraMuto". VRT permission from Akira Muto needed. MKFI (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published in https://miroux.band/pages/contact with no indication of a free license. VRT permission needed. MKFI (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published in https://miroux.band/pages/about with no indication of a free license. VRT permission needed. MKFI (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted after request at COM:UDR in order to start a new request to delete. Previous deletion request was Commons:Deletion requests/File:A fabulous birthday (23491654620).jpg. The file was nominated for deletion for the following reason: "This file was initially tagged by Broichmore as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Selfie, does not meet any notability criteria, this is not facebook" Thuresson (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to interested parties: @Belbury: , @Abzeronow: , @Yann: , @Jameslwoodward: , @Bastique: , @RoyZuo: . Thuresson (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep demonstrates the use of iMovie without violating copyright. The composition of the photograph is also good. The photograph is interesting. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 14:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thuresson: the author of the picture is User:Fabrice Florin, an active Wikimedian who is also now an employee of the WMF. Should they be pinged as well? I do not believe that should influence one way or the other whether we keep it or not, particularly as they uploaded it to Flickr and not to Commons, but since it does involve their photo and a person that they know well, I wonder if they should be directed to this conversation? Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 14:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as per my previous comment. Yann (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep for the reasons stated by Bastique. Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep one of the few commons files that show a girl using video editing software.

and i dont see how this flickr image is in any way inferior to commercial stock photos of the same motif https://www.gettyimages.de/search/2/image?phrase=girl%20edit%20video https://www.shutterstock.com/search/girl-edit-video .

the background is what a natural, realistic bedroom/study looks like, unlike the fake setups that give a commercial stock photo vibe.

on top of that, imovie is proprietary software by apple. the slightly blurry screen is just a perfect middle ground such that it cannot be considered a copyright violation of the proprietary software but still is recognisable enough as a girl editing videos.--RoyZuo (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, this looks to be the only image on Commons that could meaningfully illustrate the concept of home video editing, and it would be a good fit at en:Video editing#Home video editing. It's not really a selfie, it barely shows one side of the person's face. The focus is the video editing that they're doing. Belbury (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrwashing, new account with only this photo Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in es:Adriana Corella there's an article about this woman. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The styles of Keep cases.jpg
• File:My broken ps2 from my childhood.jpg
• File:NES Classic Edition, SNES Classic, and original snes.jpg

These three images uploaded by User:AOMAF2024 have a fabric Cut The Rope artwork. Also, The styles of Keep cases.jpg have high-res copyrighted covers and needs a alternative image of keep cases without copyrighted covers. Todonite (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh no AOMAF2024 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This logo looks too complex to be free Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Absolutely, unless the copyright holder gives permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

এটি পুরোপুরি মুক্ত সংস্করণের চিত্র নয়, Fair Use হিসেবে এর ব্যবহার সর্বোত্তম। NiloyBCPSC (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a file, and it should be deleted because it has no use. Chealer (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Tempaltes are perfectly in scope ("not a file" is not a valid reason for deletion). Still, this tempalte is redundant and useless, so strong support for deletion. There are also Template:Invalid SVG (to be deleted too, no interwiki) trans and Template:InvalidSVG d:Q15715403 trans. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States Nv8200p (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely claimed as own work with no evidence of permission - source image: https://x.com/zak_nelson22/status/1771084049559277582 Hullian111 (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely claimed as own work without evidence of permission to suggest otherwise - source image: https://x.com/zak_nelson22/status/1770803736002060551 Hullian111 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, blurry image that illustrates nothing. According to description, it's supposed to illustrate a village, but other than the fact that it may have been taken in the vicinity of said image, it has no connection with its alleged subject.  —Andrei^talk 12:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Diogo Cardoso, Getty Images - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author died in 1955, and the painting is from 1950, so it will be another 33 years until it is PD in the US Wiiformii (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Italian painter, undelete in 2026 should do it. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a NRHP site Colette Eshleman (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a work by Tasnim, photographed by Amir Cohen for Reuters [3] HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tasnim doesn't seem to be strict about copyright. I suggest not to approve uploading Pictures from this site Hanay (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanay Tasnim is actually an invaluable source of freely-licensed files, but it must be used with extra cautious. Please read this for more information. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:License laundering. None of these files are works created by the sources mentioned. Iranian news agencies such as Tasnim, Mehr and Fars have a conventional way of publishing their own photographs (mentioning the photographer's name and using a watermark). While lack of these do not necessarily mean that the photos are not freely-licensed, lack any further indication that these works are owned by those sources and the fact that many of these photographs are found elsewhere on the internet or obviously seem like screenshots, means that we'd better delete them.

• File:وحید آقاپور بازیگر ایرانی.jpg
• File:Vahid Aghapoor.jpg
• File:نیما کرمی.jpg
• File:Nima Karami.jpg
• File:Amin Hayai and his son Dara Hayai.jpg
• File:Dara Hayai and his father.jpg
• File:Dara Hayai.jpg
• File:محمدحسین پویانفر مداح ایرانی.jpg
• File:محمدحسین پویانفر.jpg
• File:Mohammad Hossein Pouyanfar.jpg
• File:عباس موزون سازنده و مجری برنامه زندگی پس از زندگی.jpg
• File:عباس موزون مجری ایرانی.jpg
• File:Abbas Mowzoon.jpg
• File:حامد کاشانی کارشناس شیعه.jpg
• File:حامد کاشانی.jpg
• File:علی قلیچ.jpg
• File:Ali Ghelich.jpg
• File:احسان یاسین.jpg
• File:Ehsan Yasin.jpg
• File:Mozhdeh Lavasani 2023.jpg
• File:Peyman Yousefi.jpg
• File:Kamran Najafzadeh 2024.jpg
• File:Hossein Haghighi.jpg
• File:عباس موزون.jpg

HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable

• File:Javid Nasiri (cropped).jpg
• File:Javid Nasiri.jpg

HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear@HeminKurdistan 4ipid (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear @HeminKurdistan Please explain why you nominated this photo File:Javid Nasiri.jpg for removal under the title of not remarkable?

This person is an Iranian pop singer and has pages on international platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, Instagram, isni, imdb, etc.

If you check his wikidata item and his platforms, you will realize that this person has an acceptable reputation. This photo was taken by me and I am very careful in the photos I upload.

Please review and remove this photo from the nomination. I am waiting for your reply. Thanks 4ipid (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4ipid. Everyone can create accounts on social media. The Wikidata item has been deleted. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of being a work by SNN/Mehr (no photographer credit, no watermark), seems like a screenshot from the film

• File:Aron Afshar (cropped).jpg
• File:Aron Afshar.jpg
• File:Keisan Dibaj and Dara Hayai.jpg

HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of being a work by Mehr (no photographer credit, no watermark), seems like a screenshot from the film

• File:Mohammad Movahedi Azad (cropped).jpg
• File:Mohammad Movahedi Azad.jpg

HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry, low-quality, out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment reuploaded several times Taylor 49 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work, work of Dwi Asih lintarti or campaign team https://www.instagram.com/p/C_UvJZJPKcK/?igsh=MXFoZG9ic2FxbGF5cg== Technetium 99m (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am part of Mrs. Lintarti’s campaign team and I do have access to the source file. Raihandw (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send an email to the volunteer response team permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to verify that you are who you are and have the permission to release the files, thank you Technetium 99m (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just look at it... legit made me laugh when I zoomed in a little bit 75.4.39.1 15:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Looks fine to me, and it's in use across numerous wikis. Omphalographer (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. A good laugh is not a legit reason for deletion. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF reads copyrighted by LIBOR PAWLAS -- Deadstar (msg) 15:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted photo A1Cafel (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused flag of a non-notable fictional country 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused flag of a non-notable fictional country 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused flag of a non-notable fictional country 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly The Angel, I support your statement. That flag is also a form of hate speech. Neo-Nazi and conservative social media accounts will use this.

OMGShay 92 (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused flag of a non-notable fictional country 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom — OwenBlacker (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational value? 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not educationally useful 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused flag of a non-notable fictional country 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused flag of a non-notable fictional country 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused flag of a non-notable fictional country 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 15:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look like own work, but photo of photo. Who is author of original photo and when (s)he died? When and where the photo was first published? Taivo (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person who scans and uploads the photo is not the orignal author. Thus, the licence and the author have been changed by now. The photo looks from a time around 1900, and thus the photographer has most likely died more than 70 years ago. Please keep- --NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is made circa 1901, then it is in public domain due to age. But why do you think, that it is not made for example in 1931? Taivo (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced this image from the U.S. Marshals website. However, it was pointed out on the English Wikipedia that this appears to be a wedding photo (and therefore not a U.S. government work). Therefore, it should probably be deleted out of an abundance of caution. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Hornstrandir1 as Speedy (speedy). I do not understand, why the image must be deleted. One week for discussion. Taivo (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Edit summary was "doublicate" [sic]. It's entirely possible that this is indeed a duplicate - images from government sources are often distributed through multiple channels and end up uploaded to Commons multiple times - but we'd need to know what other file it's a duplicate of before deleting it.  Delete now that the duplicate has been identified. Omphalographer (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Duplicate is File:Crowded boardwalk in the Lower Geyser Basin (70d45aa1-a30f-4f13-a7de-f74224a9b768).jpg and it has more comprehensive info. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zdjęcie zostało wrzucone przeze mnie w sposób niepoprawny, bez wcześniejszej weryfikacji licencji. Nie jestem w stanie ustalić autora fotografii, stąd prośba o usunięcie fotografii z zasobów Mag.po (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Hornstrandir1 as Speedy (speedy). I do not understand, why the image must be deleted. One week for discussion. Taivo (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same file is twice to be found within the Category:Lower Geyser Basin. See and compare to File:Crowded boardwalk in the Lower Geyser Basin (26804377716).jpg

I thought one is superfluous.

There are by the way, also some other dublicates within this category.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hornstrandir1: {{Duplicate}} is the best template to use to tag duplicates for deletion. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BMacZero I would suggest adding {{Duplicate}} as another option in the Tools menu to the left, to be activated via preferences, but only available to deserving users (i.e. sysops, license reviewers, and autopatrolled users). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the somewhat newer upload, but at a quick glance has better info. I'd suggest redirecting File:Crowded boardwalk in the Lower Geyser Basin (26804377716).jpg to here; first copy any info that might be on that page and not this one.

And in the future, please use {{Duplicate}}. - Jmabel ! talk 08:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI images with no apparent basis in reality masquerading as accurate depictions of an identifiable person. Out of scope - should never be used.

• File:Francisco Cipriano Calvo Francmasón.jpg
• File:Francisco Calvo.png

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Second file looks like it was based on the photo seen at [4]. That photo is almost certainly in the public domain - it'd make a much better illustration than these AI-generated images. Omphalographer (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI modification of File:Caudillo liberal Morazan pintura casa presidencial El Salvador.jpg that introduces inaccuracies (eyes, icon on sash, etc.). Should not be used. Out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Solomon203 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G1. As original file author is Lolling, uploader is AnaLulu, redirect creator is Mateus2019 and nominator is Solomon203 (all different people), the redirect does not qualify for speedy deletion and I create a regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origine non renseignée, image ayant moins de 70 ans, probablement non libre de droit --Vanuatu (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origine non renseignée, image ayant moins de 70 ans, probablement non libre de droit --Vanuatu (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for 3D artworks in the United States. This cenotaph was created no earlier than 2000 and is too new to be in public domain due to age. Evidence of permission from sculptor is needed. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged license could not be verified under the given source, Copyright violation Squasher (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep This file was created solely using public domain material (File:Coat of arms of Montenegro.svg, File:Olympic rings with white rims.svg), so it does not constitute a copyright violation. It is not a valid nomination for deletion. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my bad. The file should be kept. Sorry. - Squasher (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Fry1989 ^eh? 14:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk COM:NETCOPYVIOs - low res, no EXIF, elsewhere before upload (e.g, File:Amalaa.jpg is here; File:Masaa.jpg is here; File:Agwaluma.jpg is here; File:Umaru musa yar adua conference center Kaduna.jpg is here; etc.)

• File:Amalaa.jpg
• File:Masaa.jpg
• File:Jallof.jpg
• File:Naman Rago.jpg
• File:Tsire nama.jpg
• File:Wainan Arish da Kwai.jpg
• File:Wanka.jpg
• File:Fulani dress.jpg
• File:Kanuri.jpg
• File:Nama Balango.jpg
• File:Shinkafa da Mai da Yaji.jpg
• File:Agwaluma.jpg
• File:Umaru musa yar adua conference center Kaduna.jpg
• File:Yola city.jpg
• File:Hockey field in kaduna.jpg

Эlcobbola _talk 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, not very educationally useful. This is my own image, and I am not familiar with deletion discussions well, so I apologize in advance if I have done anything wrong. L'Mainerque (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request by original uploader: blurred, uploaded by mistake Sciking (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrwashing - 1) more complete and higher resolution version was here more than a year before Flickr upload and 2) Flickr uploader purports to be the subject (Matthew Hoffman). Copyright, however, initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject, and does not transfer but through writing. VRT evidence of permission is needed. Эlcobbola _talk 19:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and this plaque was created in 2019. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and these plaques were all created in the 2010s. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

• File:Армянск, 2019 год, 32.jpg
• File:Пам’ятна дошка Хілкову О.Д., с.Павлівка.jpg
• File:Табличка станции ворзель.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Se sospecha de violación a derechos de autor (copyvio). La imagen había sido publicada anteriormente en el sitio web de la Universidad San Sebastián [5]. No queda claro si la persona que subió el archivo es también el autor de la fotografía. Es posible que simplemente haya sacado la imagen de otro sitio y la haya subido utilizando una licencia inadecuada, en cuyo caso sería una violación al derecho de autor. SamuelInzunza (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quién es Pamela San Martín, la autora? 186.173.92.83 20:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela San Martín Jara? 186.173.92.83 20:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: typically horrific AI-generated diagram; only use was in out-of-place AI-generated English nonsense inserted in scwiki. Omphalographer (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: likely AI-generated hoax. (I'm following up on the article at ptwiki.) Omphalographer (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pt:Turgan 36 has been speedily deleted as a hoax. Not actually AI-generated, my mistake; it's actually an edited photo of a toy truck: [6] Omphalographer (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 3D works in the United States Nv8200p (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. Erected in 1974 without a copyright notice, so this is {{PD-US-no notice}} per COM:PACUSA. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Added {{PD-US-no notice}} tag to file licensing Nv8200p (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and this plaque was created in 1996. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and this plaque was created in 1992. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

• File:18-110-0029 Пам'ятний знак на честь перебування у місті Т. Г. Шевченка.jpg
• File:46 Тарас Шевченко 1993.jpg
• File:Пам'ятний знак на честь перебування у місті Т. Г. Шевченка.,.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and this gravestone was created in 1975. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and this bust was created in 1971. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

• File:Будинок Лесі Українки в Новограді-Волинському.JPG
• File:Будинок, в якому народилася і жила Леся Українка.jpg
• File:Будинок, в якому народилася і жила поетеса та громадська діячка Леся Українка.jpg
• File:Національний музей ім. Лесі Українки. - panoramio (2).jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep "Tracey McKinney in Saudi Arabia teaching neonatal healthcare", although this file was temporarily tagged by Nv8200pa as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of existing photo, missing original author, date, source, and permission. P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded from an NWS website.

I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source. They confirmed that they

• own the copyright on the image
• do not want to release it into the public domain

"This is definitely not Public Domain and I'm not planning to release it into the Public Domain at this time. [...] If there are any others that you suspect are my photos that may be being misused, please do not hesitate to reach out. "

I have forwarded the conversation to the VRT. (ticket:2024100210010288)

This is not a free image, so we can't host it here.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete: it is clear that this isn’t public domain; and that said copyright holder does NOT want it to be so. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I changed my mind. Let's just stick with the 2-3 aspect ratio flag, it's most suitable for it. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses). We rely on the captions they were published with to tell us where the photo originated.

This particular photo was unattributed at the source,[7] but because it is unlike the images usually taken by NWS staff in the course of their duties and looks more like a public submission, I reached out the to NWS office that published this photo (New Orleans).

They confirmed that it is not an NWS image but contributed by a member of the public, whom they did not name:

"This image was shared to us by a member of the public, and they allowed us to use it for the web page. It's a still image from a video of the tornado they took from their home. "

I have forwarded this response to the VRT (ticket:2024100210010484).

Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise creator and evidence of permission can be found.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by I dream of horses as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Also here. Yann (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by I dream of horses as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Hit on ancestory.com Yann (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Nv8200pa as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Yann (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo from 2015 shows probably a young mother and her children wearing clowns costumes and make-up. It is semi-professionally made with a large cardboard background. The purpose of this photo isn't fully clear: Does it show, "people wearing costumes at home for family entertainment"? The Spanish captions do not mention the names of the people shown. Thus, I guess, the photo fits well into Category:Clown costumes and do not see a reason for (speedy) deletion, just because it has now been cropped, translated and categorized. Please keep and remind Nv8200pa to request speedy deletion only in well explained exceptional circumstances. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of assumptions are being made about this image. The people in the image may not even be related or at their home or they were doing this for family entertainment. It was taken with a cell phone and is very blurry. I would not qualify it as semi-professional. We make all these guesses about the intent of images, which have no or inadequate descriptions, and then classify them as educational. My opinion still is this is a poor-quality personal image taken by a non-contributor. Nv8200p (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very good quality but certainly could be categorized as "people wearing clown costumes and makeup." And it didn't warrant speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every image can be categorized. In my opinion, that does not make it educational. It's a low-quality image of a bunch of kids taken with a cell phone. It looked like a personal image, of course that is subjective. It is the only image the user contributed. It my opinion, the image met the criteria for F10 speedy deletion. Nv8200p (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a basis for discussion about it, it should not have been tagged for speedy deletion. I'm surprised you won't concede that point now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Downtown LaCrosse aerial.png
• File:La Crosse Regional Airport.jpeg
• File:La Crosse airport tower.jpeg
• File:La Crosse Center interior.png

These files are all sourced to a page of a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses). We generally rely on the captions they were published with to tell us where the photo originated.

These images were all published without any attribution,[8] but because they are unlike the images usually taken by NWS staff in the course of their duties, I reached out the to NWS office that published them (La Crosse). They told me:

• they do not know who took these photos and "don't have easy access to documentation of where/who the images are from"
• other images on that page appear to be a mixture of NWS photos and some that "appear to be acquired from other parties/resources: Chamber of Commerce, Partner Groups, Internet Sources"

I have forwarded this response to the VRT (ticket:2024100210010528).

Because we cannot verify that they are (or were ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise creator and evidence of permission can be found. If the NWS has lost track of their ownership and they are truly orphan images, they will enter the public domain 120 years after they were taken, probably somewhere around 2120.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

--Rlandmann (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope: unused fictional election apportionment diagram, wrong numbers (neither true for 2019 as the filename states, nor for the upload date 2020-10-11), maybe based on early projections or preliminary election results (file was uploaded on election day). 2003:E5:3748:4200:6856:8DB7:B95E:102A 23:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this image isn't the F5 Hudsonville tornado, it's the F4 Saugatuck tornado, and it isn't forming, it's dissipating, but that's all beside the point!

The uploader sourced this image from a National Weather Service history page. The photo was taken by Jarvin Kleiman, a resident of the area at the time, and provided to an NWS researcher by a member of the local historical society. Mr Kleiman passed away in 2002.[9]

Correspondence with the NWS researcher confirms:

• they have independent evidence confirming that Mr Kleiman took the photo from his home (meaning that it is not the work of the NWS or another US government agency)
• they are not specifically aware of any prior publication of this photo.

I have forwarded this conversation to the VRT (ticket:2024100210010644)

He did think that it might have appeared in newspapers of the time. However, searches of local newspapers on newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com failed to turn up this specific image. I focused on The Grand Rapids Press, the Holland (Evening) Sentinel and The Holland City News for the weeks following the event, plus the 10-, 20-, 25-, and 30-year anniversaries of the disaster.

The Grand Rapids Press did run another photo by Mr Kleiman, taken within moments of this one, and I have uploaded it with the correct description here: File:Dissipation of the F4 Saugatuck, Michigan tornado 1956.jpg. It is definitely free of copyright and can be used in place of this image if we delete it.

As a photo taken in the United States prior to 1989, its copyright status rests on whether, when, and in what context it was first published.

In this particular case, there is no known publication before 2006, when the NWS published a series of articles to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the disaster.[10]

There is no evidence that Mr Kleiman ever released this image into the public domain, and there is no way to ask him now.

Therefore, per COM:ONUS unless anyone can provide evidence that:

• this particular image was published prior to 1989 without following copyright formalities (like the other one from this series was) OR
• Mr Kleiman ever released this into the public domain or under a free license OR
• his estate or heirs ever released this into the public domain or under a free license or would be willing to do so now

this image is presumably protected by copyright that will not expire until 2073, 70 years after Mr Kleiman's death, and we cannot host it on the Commons.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fooled!  Delete because I'm pissed. LOL! XD ChessEric (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osobní duvody tvůrce Arevrenyi (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]