Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/19

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
18 September 2024
20 September 2024
Deletion requests on 19 September 2024

September 19

[edit]

File:Loyola New Orleans Athletics Logo art.jpg

[edit]

Logo no problem? 181.203.83.97 01:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was walking on campus and passed this industrial metal box with this art painted on it. Thought it looked cool so took a picture. Not 100% sure about all the rules on Wikimedia Commons about taking pictures of art but figured it was ok. If it meets the criteria to keep, great. If not, that's ok too. Spatms (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - I'd like to keep it, but I get it if it has some copyright issue associated with it. Will be ok either way. Spatms (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Africa 2020

[edit]

This is not a gallery, and should not be in main/gallery space. If there is a reason to keep it, it should become a subpage of Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2020, e.g. Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2020/something. If someone wants it saved and has an appropriate location, just let me know and I will move it instead of deleting. Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an exception to all the other "Wiki Loves Earth" gallery pages you moved to project pages? JopkeB (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Fair enough. I propose we create a Wiki Loves Africa in the very same way than Wiki Loves Earth exist. I hope we could discuss the fact that pages such as Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 winnaars are allowed to exist so that we avoid double standards though ? Anthere (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created a very rough Wiki Loves Africa (to be completed) and those pages can be redirected to it. Anthere (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you created a gallery page, instead of a project page. That is not right. Please move it to a project pages and delete the gallery page. JopkeB (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Africa 2021

[edit]

This is not a gallery, and should not be in main/gallery space. If there is a reason to keep it, it should become a subpage of Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021, e.g. Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021/something. If someone wants it saved and has an appropriate location, just let me know and I will move it instead of deleting. Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an exception to all the other "Wiki Loves Earth" gallery pages you moved to project pages? JopkeB (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Fair enough. I propose we create a Wiki Loves Africa in the very same way than Wiki Loves Earth exist. I hope we could discuss the fact that pages such as Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 winnaars are allowed to exist so that we avoid double standards though ? Anthere (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthere: Wiki Loves Africa Wiki Loves Earth is a (poor) gallery page, but its format is that of a gallery page. Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 winnaars more or less follows the standards of a gallery page, although its images should be captioned. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Corrected Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Loves Africa certainly belongs as a project page (in "Commons" space), not as a gallery (in main space). It is simply not a gallery. - Jmabel ! talk 14:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete this is better as a section at Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021. Pages that do not contain any namespace like this are supposed to be gallery pages, but the current version of the page does not function as such. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB, Anthere, and JWilz12345: Unless someone either takes on on merging this into Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021 (in which case the gallery can presumably be deleted) or someone objects in the next 7 days to what I'm about to propose, I propose to move this to Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021/Celebrate Africa. No content lost, non-gallery out of gallery space. - Jmabel ! talk 13:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the solution of JWilz12345: to merge this gallery page into Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021, and then delete it. Then there is one place where you can find information about this subject and Celebrate Africa can be a header in it. JopkeB (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: fine with me; care to do that merge? - Jmabel ! talk 09:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I do not see what would be the differences between your two options. So do as you feel is best. But please do not make changes to the landing page of WLA 2021. Anthere (talk)
@Anthere: you appear to be saying you would be opposed to merging this content into Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021. What do you propose instead? I'm open to almost any solution, but each time we appear to have consensus, someone objects. - Jmabel ! talk 13:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Africa 2022

[edit]

This is not a gallery, and should not be in main/gallery space. If there is a reason to keep it, it should become a subpage of Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2022, e.g. Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2022/something. If someone wants it saved and has an appropriate location, just let me know and I will move it instead of deleting. Jmabel ! talk 04:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an exception to all the other "Wiki Loves Earth" gallery pages you moved to project pages? JopkeB (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Fair enough. I propose we create a Wiki Loves Africa in the very same way than Wiki Loves Earth exist. I hope we could discuss the fact that pages such as Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 winnaars are allowed to exist so that we avoid double standards though ? Anthere (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my answer at Commons:Deletion requests/Wiki Loves Africa 2021. We don't need to have essentially the same conversation about comparable or non-comparable pages in two places. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Posters and video on captured equipment exhibition in Moscow.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TSE-Dados-Abertos

[edit]

I apologize for raising concerns about this template. While the images it uses are relevant to Brazil and its politics, there seems to have been some confusion during its creation. Page 15 of this PDF supposedly allows those images to be used under CC BY. However, the file in question is from the state government of Amapá, not the Superior Electoral Court, which are two distinct institutions. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, RodRabelo7!
This template really needs to be improved, since I had copied it from another existing one, the one from the Governo do Amapá, because I didn't know how to create a completely new template. Our colleague Matrix had already pointed out the need to correct the translation, which is all in English. But please keep in mind that the license is correct, since it refers to the "Open Data Portal of the Superior Electoral Court of Brazil", see the website: https://dadosabertos.tse.jus.br/dataset/. Could you help me? I have a lot of trouble with this type of editing! Ajmcbarreto (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajmcbarreto, I have therefore removed the mention to the Amapá state government's file. Apparently the template is indeed correct now, but I wish we could make it more clear where the license is located. Do you have any ideas? RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7 I just put the correct link, see if it's good now. See that the template in Portuguese was already correct: TSE-Dados-Abertos/pt. Please, see: https://dadosabertos.tse.jus.br/dataset/ Ajmcbarreto (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm OK with it now, sorry for bothering you with this. I won't close this DR because an administrator closure would be better IMHO, in order to avoid future re-openings. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Development of AI-Based Diet and Exercise Application.pdf

[edit]

Out of scope: not a published paper. This reads more like a report on a class project than a research paper. Omphalographer (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Useful and valuable for many reasons. But probably too prominently featured in the categories its in rather than being buried in some category specifically for documents (this can be changed). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it useful for? There's surprisingly little substantial content in this document. In particular, it doesn't explain at all how the "AI-Based" features were implemented, or (as promised in the abstract) how effective the app was for users. There are no results and no conclusions; it's simply a recitation of what the students did. Omphalographer (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does show how they were implemented and the descriptions are useful. People may come along and claim they first got the idea for something like this and patent it which is difficult when PDFs like this exist. Moreover, there are many further ways this can be useful and most PDFs on here are not nearly as useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this paper actually explained how some of its features were implemented, it might be marginally useful. However, it does not. There are no meaningful, actionable details anywhere in the document - phrases like "the application uses artificial intelligence algorithms" are as detailed as it gets.
In any case: our standard criterion for including papers on Commons is that they have been peer-reviewed and published. This paper does not appear to have been published; therefore, it's out of scope by default. Omphalographer (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At page 5 there's screenshots. I don't agree. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete: agree with nom, just using Commons as webhost, out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:团圆饭.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio, originally from vcg 水餃喵 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:В.Г.Клюев1943.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by OneLittleMouse as Copyvio (copyvio) Yann (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it is obvious that when the author is indicated as "unknown author" and the source is "family archive", there can be no talk of any "cc-by-sa-4.0" compliance; and probably no talk of any other free license either. OneLittleMouse (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Cape Town Civic Centre

[edit]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in South Africa.

A1Cafel (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by MoSchle (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These files, showing photographs apparently scanned from a 1939 (not 1938, see the title page) German magazine, were uploaded in 2020 with a {{PD-old-80}} license tag. A photographer named Watzke is credited (Foto: Watzke) as the author. This person is not identified further, and I couldn't find any details either. The usage of the PD-old-80 tag makes me suspect that the uploader did not understand the pma (post mortem auctoris, after the death of the author) aspect of copyright. It's not impossible that Watzke died no later than 1939, but (s)he also easily could have lived for many decades after. We simply don't know. Plus, German photographs published in 1939 had their US copyright restored by the URAA, so they are still protected in the US until the end of 2034.

So the files should be deleted per the URAA and the precautionary principle. They can be restored in 2060 (with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}, unless Watzke can be identified and a year of death determined. In that case, the files can be restored 70 years pma, but not before 2035.

Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Sound logic and I cannot find a photographer called Watzke in the German death certificates. They were were probably not working as a photographer at the time of death. --RAN (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slobodan Milošević šezdesetih godina (treći sleva, drugi zdesna sedi Kosta Čavoški).jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation. there is no evidence that it was published before 1966 (as required to enter PD in SFRY) Ђидо (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Earl of Bath's Regiment of Foot.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyright violation. It looks like a scan from fairly modern book. Ђидо (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zgrada u Takovskoj 10, 70-te.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation, published after 1966. Ђидо (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mitropolit-Danilo.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation. Icon seems like newer work, not ancient. Ђидо (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:2024 Lebanon pager explosions

[edit]

I doubt any of these files were taken by Mehr News reporters. Google Translate version of the website shows a collection of photos/videos with social media watermarks, telegram watermarks, from other news agencies etc. There is also extensive mention of reports from Reuters and Al Jazeera which makes me think even less these photos were taken by Mehr News Agency. Should be deleted as probable copyvio and per COM:PCP

—Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for not rechecking this as the uploader. My initial reverse image search at the time of upload returned no other results than Mehr's, though. Regardless,  Agreed with the nomination. -- Chainwit. (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nominator. While Mehr News Agency has an extensive collection of Iran-related photographs created by its staff, it is also known to re-publish works from foreign sources without proper credit. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2019 attack on the United States embassy in Iraq 04.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PalauanLibertarian and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ahmed NGS. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a bit off-topic, but maybe it's time to add Mehr News to Commons:Problematic sources? Ixfd64 (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixfd64: Yes I think that should be done in addition to the deletion of these files. Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete as per nominator. Gryllida (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Kakoivn1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These are all computer-generated models of houses for sale, all with promotional file descriptions, and all linked to a sales website. Some files are overlayed with a promotional watermark (File:Nha-cap-4-o-nong-thon-mai-thai.jpg, for example). All outside of COM:SCOPE.

Marbletan (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer models of houses are clearly in scope, in my opinion, and definitely can be useful. If the CC1 declarations are valid, we should definitely keep these files and eliminate any promotional text. I wouldn't oppose removing images with obtrusive watermarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HGTV Canada logo.svg

[edit]

Not used, replaced by File:HGTV Canada logo.png because the logo is altered at bottom of the letter G Corus Entertainment Inc (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brunei$.jpg

[edit]

It is likely that the design of these notes are unfree. Wikipedia even has images under NFF. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1 доллар 2008 год. Бруней..jpg

[edit]

It is likely that the design of these notes are unfree. Wikipedia even has images under NFF. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:OTFW to art project "RAUMkomposition in ROT"

[edit]

These images were all uploaded by User:OTFW. I believe they should be deleted because non-permanent art, thus no FOP. The sculpture will only be exhibited during the autumn and winter months 2024/2025, according to https://www.berlin.de/ba-charlottenburg-wilmersdorf/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2024/pressemitteilung.1484399.php --Singlespeedfahrer (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gary Johnson interviewed by Nick Gillespie @ CPAC 2018.webm

[edit]

YouTube video from a suspended account. The oldest archived version shows the same problem. Günther Frager (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:GILETS JAUNES - ÉVÉNEMENTS EN DIRECT DU SAMEDI 1er DÉCEMBRE à PARIS.webm

[edit]

It is not possible to review the license of this YouTube video. The video is currently unavailable and the oldest archived version has the same problem. Günther Frager (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files in Category:Kasikatan Patis

[edit]

COM:PACKAGING, COM:TOO Philippines. There are other photos of this label in this category, but I think that de minimis applies.

—holly {chat} 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Kohykft (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Documents as uploaded lack obvious confirmation of declassification. I suspect this is an oversight on the part of the uploader as other documents uploaded at the same time, have appropriate markings.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edward Kozak USR in Lviv.jpg

[edit]

It is PD in the US but Edward Kozak is from Ukraine and he died in 1992. So I do not see how this can be PD. MGA73 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris fin de la manifestation anti LoiTravail à Bastille manif 5 juillet.webm

[edit]

Unable to review its license. The video is currently unavailable and the oldest archived version also shows the same problem. Günther Frager (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Ciwan2008 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Some of these photographs look like selfies, and I bet uploader isn't two of them at the same time, so as per the precautionary principle I'm nominating all of them for deletion. Perhaps File:Şair Müslüm Aslan ve şair Aydın Alp.jpg and File:Müslüm Aslan ve Azad zal.jpg could indeed by their own work, but I really doubt the others.

RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HGTV Canada logo.png

[edit]

Uploader is a confirmed sock on enwiki. File is a duplicate of enwiki's en:File:HGTV Canada.png which is non-free. Ivanvector (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should keep File:HGTV Canada logo.png only, not File:HGTV Canada logo.svg wich has bottom of the letter G altered; with resolution of the logo File:HGTV Canada logo.png, we can instantly see that is not a duplicate. The logo en:File:HGTV Canada.png is blurred in details.--69.171.146.224 06:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is also a sockpuppet. Ivanvector (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by WordClerk (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not own works, unclear copyright status.

HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also affected:
HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Young Clifford Roy Baker.jpeg File:Military Cross (1945) - Clifford Roy Baker02.jpg File:Military Cross (1945) PD-UK and Clifford Roy Baker01.jpg File:LCol Clifford Roy Baker.jpg (if this is a family pic taken by the uploader) --RAN (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Gerald Bull and Clifford Roy Baker.jpg File:Gerald Bull and Clifford Roy Baker.jpg File:Gerald Bull 1964 cropped to portrait.jpg PD in Canada. They should also be transferred to Familysearch. --RAN (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo could be PD-Canada-anon if anonymous and published between 1964 and 1970, but there is no proof that the author is unknown and no indication of the publication date. I suppose it is delete anyway, unfortunately. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taiwan Presidential Election Campaigning 2012.webm

[edit]

Unable to review the license. The video is private and the archived versions (included the oldest one) has the same problem. Günther Frager (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:DEID wordmark.svg

[edit]

No educational value. The website linked to a harassment campaign is run by one person. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related to the ongoing Wikidata discussions (one, two) and if so, it could be an attempt by the same user to give more value to the DEIDetected Wikidata page nominated for deletion. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will not even comment on such unfounded accusations and this topic you started has nothing to do with Commons. I'll just say that you omit the fact that you started to persistently remove/revert a useful source from Wikidata, which you disagree with for your own personal reasons ("disagreement with source" is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources on Wikidata), and you mention this topic here for some reason even though it has nothing to do with Commons...
As for the file itself  Speedy keep as this is just a simple text logo recreated by me. The logo doesn't exceed threshold of originality, so there is no valid reason for deletion. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rationale if not the use on that Wikidata page nominated for deletion, given that having wiki links is one of the three criteria under the Wikidata notability guidelines? Also, why the quotation marks around disagreement with source? It's not something I've ever said. The discussion is there in its entirety for everyone to see. Daisy Blue (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an illustration of a simple text logo, it is in use, in scope and it does not exceed the threshold of originality. It was not created to have a sitelink on Wikidata, especially since the item now meets the other two criteria, i.e. criterion #2 and criterion #3, so this is purely your personal complaints, which have nothing to do with Commons like this thread you started...
As for disagreement with the source, you have demonstrated this repeatedly on Wikidata, as you have now also here, trying to remove anything related to this database, and this even though there is more than nothing wrong with this file on Commons. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/19&oldid=963650610"