Commons:Deletion requests/2024/11/30

Possibly copyvio: With absolutely no information on the location or sculptor of this statue, we can't be certain that it's in the public domain (or covered by FoP). Omphalographer (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Impossible to determine FoP status without more information. Dmartin969 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep. You know you can use Google to reverse image search, right? A simple reverse image search would have told you that this statue is in India, and thus allowable by COM:FOP India. The Telugu language caption should also have been a clue. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, ha, and it's actually a slightly desaturated version of File:Raja Veera Madakari Nayaka1.jpg. But if that's the case, it should be deleted/redirected as a duplicate. Omphalographer (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No clear visible usage permisson or OTRS given. Photo copyright violation. ThecentreCZ (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We informed the Wikimedia copyrights team twice, I can show you the copy of the email, where the owner portrayed states the copyrights and that it can be used. I just don't know ho to prove this anymore, as it is freely used on many internet sites and I have clear permission from the owner. If you could give me an advice on where to send this information to so that it would finally be okay, let me know. Petiii3 (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I can't find the ticket, so I asked at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#File:Jan_Tyl.jpg if anyone else can. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No free cc-license on source, [1]. Htm (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC) (edit) Picture taken from website of Orthodox Church of Finland. Photo by professional photographer and visual artist Jyri Pitkänen. This is a clear copyright violation.--Htm (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Htm Why? This person is the new Primate of the Finnish Orthodox Church and the photo was taken from its official website. He is an important person and I believe he should not be deleted, because there are no other photos of him. If you can find another photo, you who are from beautiful Finland, replace it. Good morning. Spartacos31 (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the photo is good and so is Elia, but the photo was from the website of the Finnish Orthodox Church and to my knowledge it is protected by copyright and not published with free license. I guess a photo will be available soon or some wikimedian will take it.-- Htm (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Htm Kiitos vastauksesta. Odotetaan, että joku muu tulee paikalle. Uskon, että Suomen ortodoksisella kirkolla ei ole mitään ongelmaa, kun käytämme verkkosivuiltaan uutta esimiehensä kuvaa. Onnea.

I hope the google translation into Finnish is understandable! Spartacos31 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot assume what the church thinks, we have to be sure about the proper rights of the image. The license you put into the picture (CC0) means that the photographer has released the image to be used by anyone and anywhere, including for commercial purposes. The image, however, does not seem to have that license, and if someone uses the image after taking it from Commons, they could get into trouble for using a copyrighted image without permission. If you look at the exif information of the image, it says "copyrighted", it does not say "free to use by anyone".

(The Google translation is a bit poetic, but understandable. :)) kyykaarme (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍🇬🇷👍🇫🇮👍 Spartacos31 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be beyond COM:TOO China due to its fairly complex color scheme. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be beyond COM:TOO China due to its fairly complex color scheme. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation Mathis Bis (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph should indeed be deleted: After investigation, the photo was taken by a photography office ("Albert Photo", 23 cours Gambetta, Floirac, France) in nov. 1971 and the photographer has retired not long after. So far he or his rights holders cannot be located, so the photograph should be withdrawn from Commons until we find them and ask their permission to use the photo (if they agree to do so). AureaCapra (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date, wrong source, wrong author Xocolatl (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Portugal "All photographs taken until 30 June 1970 are in the public domain in Portugal". this image was taken way before that date. Günther Frager (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader clarified in his talk page that he took a photo of a photo in an exhibition. The photographer is pt:José Zagallo Ilharco (1860-1910). Günther Frager (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source??? Xocolatl (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date, see metadata. copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Mazbel as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Mazbel as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Mazbel as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Mazbel as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Mazbel as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 10:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, not created by uploader Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, not created by uploader Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-USGov not valid UltimoGrimm (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of active company (see w:en:Dunszt Kft.) Clearly not own work and likely copyrighted. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Architekturbezug, eigenes Werk? Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pd-old? Krd 09:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio: The user uploaded a lot of format without metadata, VRT requested: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just extracted the portrait from the larger image File:صالح الفوزان.jpg. If the latter is to be deleted due to whatever reason, I have no objection against deletion of my extracted image. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo seems high threshold of originality in Iran. Absolutiva (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on uploader name - it's the same as the photoed person, and the work was done by different photographer Tatewaki (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extracted from a photo taken of a US artwork. Since there is no indication the artwork is public domain and there is no freedom of panorama in the US, the CC-BY license is invalid. Tenpop421 (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep It looks like a photo booth image and they have no photographer, and are not copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extracted from a photo taken of a US artwork. Since there is no indication the artwork is public domain and there is no freedom of panorama in the US, the CC-BY license is invalid. Tenpop421 (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep We ruled previously that photo booth images are not copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A photo taken of a US artwork. Since there is no indication the artwork is public domain and there is no freedom of panorama in the US, the CC-BY license is invalid. Tenpop421 (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep We ruled previously that photo booth images are not copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This coat of arms is completely empty. Apparently, the file doesn't show the arms mentioned in the file description. Either it should be reuploaded without this mistake, or be deleted because it's useless with just the border of the shield shape. SamuelInzunza (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• also file:AMBIKADEVI PORTFOLIO.jpg
  Educational value is not shown. Taivo (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified {{PD-textlogo}}. The logo doesn't have text and it is not even composition of simple geometrical shapes to justify a low threshold of originality. Günther Frager (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. The logo does have text in white letters. --Alecto Chardon (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. The text is indeed white and it is unnoticeable with Commons' white background. I downloaded it an opened in GIMP and I can see them now. Anyways, the eagle neither a text nor a simple design. Günther Frager (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for the eagle. It sadly looks like no simple logo with only the lettering was ever made for this game. --Alecto Chardon (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be the uploader's own work - low quality, and the "4/4" in the corner suggests it is a screenshot from somewhere. Uploader is currently blocked for uploading copyrighted images, so please review the other uploads. John of Reading (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Random vulva photo, unlikely to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also nominate related uploads from the same user for same reason per nom:

• File:Femininity and Art.jpg
• File:Artistic Representation of a Woman 2.jpg
• File:Artistic Representation of a Woman 4.jpg
• File:Artistic Representation of a Woman 5.jpg
• File:Artistic Representation of a Woman 6.jpg
• File:Sunbathing Buttocks.jpg
• File:Labia Majora with natural sunlight.jpg
• File:Female Buttocks with natural light.jpg
• File:Adult Female Buttocks.jpg
• File:A woman laying down on a bed without clothes.jpg
• File:Female Breast and Nipple.jpg
• File:Female Form.jpg
• File:White Thong Bikini 2.jpg
• File:White Thong Bikini.jpg

Atomicdragon136 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure on this one; however, I definitely oppose the blanket deletion request by Atomicdragon136, as some of those photos are of very high quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a random photo, it took time to prepare the setting, to have the right lighting, and high quality equipment was used with the best possible lighting. And so to you because it is a vulva it has no educational value? What type of conclusion is that? NCroatie (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🔵Keep As there are no images in these categories with such high quality. R. A. Sterling (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So here is why these files should be kept on wikimedia commons: these files are of very high quality pixel wise and DPI wise. They also have amazing lighting and the pictures were taken in professional settings with professional equipment while maintaining a normal/natural aspect. They have several educational values being artistic reference (for drawing, painting, photography, etc), anatomy reference, health reference. They can also be used on wikipedia pages or similar platforms, or for publications, articles, etc. And the most important point: these pictures convey the message that nudity is normal, just a state, and a part of the body that should be considered as normal as a nose for example and that have been made unjustly taboo and shamed by outdated cultural norms. It cannot be argued rationally or scientifically that nudity is not normal and by repeateadly viewing such images, of normal nudity settings, nudity comes accross as normal, as a state of being. Shaming and hiding such pictures only lead to a sick and unhealthy society where nudity can be used against people through manipulation or blackmailing and this wouldn't be the case if nudity was seen as normal by everyone. NCroatie (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep High quality images. --RAN (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative scan of an artwork by Andre Mahieu. I cannot find information on when that artwork was published, but the artist was born in 1904 and died in 1979, and is still likely copyrighted. Atomicdragon136 (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I own the painting. I took this picture of the painting. Jmsabbe (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be considered a derivative work of a (likely) copyrighted artwork. If it is being used in a Wikipedia article, it should be uploaded on Wikipedia as fair use media instead. Atomicdragon136 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. The artist of this artwork is André Mahieu. Since his death in 1979, there has been no copyright on any of his works. I do however own the artwork and also the picture of it. How do I upload it as fair use media instead? kind regards! Jmsabbe (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the book itself was authored by the user doesn't mean the copyright to the cover belongs to the user. Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sounds native but completely exaggerated (for humorous effect?); questionable educational value; File:De-hanebüchen2.ogg is a much better recording — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from all Wiktionaries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

deliberately unnatural (humorous) lengthening and intonation, likely to make it sound wistful (the word means wistfulness); questionable educational value; File:De-Wehmut2.ogg is a much better recording — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from all Wiktionaries. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I have no objection to whatever the closing admin would like to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from an unknown author taken in 1993 and it is still protected by Georgian copyright law (70 years ppa for anonymous works). The CC-BY license might be from the restoration work, but we need a licence from the original one. Günther Frager (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this even a 1993 photo? The depicted men died in 1992, judging by the categories at Category:Vazha Banetishvili. Nakonana (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file name has a 1993 and the description mentions the year 1993. Maybe it was the date of publication. Günther Frager (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Georgia. Günther Frager (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A construction passport is considered an official document, which is not a subject of copyright according to Georgian law. David Osipov (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag {{PD-GE-exempt}} that you added covers administrative texts, not photographs. Also, the construction companies are the ones that create and install these kind of signs and not public employees. Günther Frager (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

غير واضحة عبد القيوم (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate: "Not clear." If you have a better photo, I'd support deletion, but otherwise, it's better than nothing, so  Keep, but if it's kept, the categorization has to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covered under GODL-India, but depicts an artwork which is copyrighted. I thought of blurring but that would ruin the image. Ratekreel (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: This file has an extracted image which should be fine even if this one is deleted. Ratekreel (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covered under GODL-India, but depicts a copyrighted artwork. This file has an extracted image which should be fine even if this is deleted. Ratekreel (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

published in 1995, so PD-Iran doesn't apply Carl (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio. EXIF says it was taken 2011, by Dzenan Hajrovic. Unlikely that uploader is that person Ђидо (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality An insect photographer (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Pretty standard quality for 1990s consumer-level digital cameras SecretName101 (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as a historically useful photo, but there's a problem with the Date field. That's just the date it was uploaded to Flickr. I'll edit that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded as "PD-US-no notice" nevertheless it is incorrect because this specific logo was created in 2001 (per sources: 1 and 2).

Files affected:

• File:Arkansas Razorbacks logo.svg
• File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png

Fma12 (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theofunny (talk • contribs) 12:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is not substantiated by reliable sources. The Hemshin peoples do not have an official or recognized flag. The depiction of Saint George's Cross is inconsistent with the predominantly Sunni Muslim identity of many Hemshin people. No official organization or credible reference supports the claim. Relevant sources: [Hemşinliler Derneği Facebook page](https://www.facebook.com/hemsinlilerdernegi/), [Hemşin Kaymakamlığı official website](http://www.hemsin.gov.tr/), [Sakarya Hemşinliler Derneği news article](https://www.sakaryarehberim.com/haber-sakarya-hemsinliler-dernegi-olagan-kurul-icin-toplaniyor-212911.html), and [Pazar53 news article on Hemşin logo](https://www.pazar53.com/hemsin-kaymakamligi-logosuna-kavustu-19820h.html). Likely a hoax, per WP:V. Theofunny (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added a new source [2]. There are good reasons now the keep the image because: ”FOTW (Flags of the World) is a site originally established by Giuseppe Bottasini and others devoted to the study of vexillology in 1994. Since then the site has been constantly fed with news and images posted to the FOTW mailing list and with other contributions from interested readers and visitors. Flags of the World is produced and maintained by an Editorial Staff of unpaid volunteers and the contents of these pages are offered freely to the Internet community."

Flags of the World is honored to be the recipient of the Vexillon Award in 2024. The Vexillon, established in 1989, has developed into an award for the most important contribution to vexillology during the two years preceding an International Congress of Vexillology. The recipient is selected by the FIAV Board. The award consists of a certificate signed by the Board and a plaque. The Vexillon is sponsored by the Flag Society of Australia Inc. (FSA). Vanezi Astghik (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might establish the notability of Flags of the world, but it doesn't really tell us why this particular flag should not be deleted. Nakonana (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that this flag was ever used by Tondo. Therefore there is no point to keep this file page that I (Delirium333) have made.

There is no evidence that this flag was ever used by Tondo or any polity in Luzon, which is the intention of the page itself. Therefore there is no point to keep this file, as misinformation will only continue so long as this file is maintained. Therefore it should be deleted unless otherwise contested with good sources.

The map is outdated, lacks sources and uses modern boundaries for an ancient polity like Namayan. This is simply unrealistic and too assuming. Moreover, it is no longer a map that is in use. Therefore it would be the best course of action to delete this page unless it is contested.