Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/12

11 October 2024

13 October 2024

Deletion requests on 12 October 2024

October 12

Files in Category:Maman (Bürkliplatz)

According to English Wikipedia, the sculpture was only exhibited from 10 June till 2 August 2011, which means it is a temporary display. Thus, it cannot be benefited from Swiss FOP

A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at Village_pump. As the sculpture wasn't just in transit at the location, but displayed in the fixed manner, this should be kept. Note that Switzerland isn't Germany which has some odd/different definition.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Maman' Spider Sculpture, National Gallery of Canada, Sussex Dr, Ottawa - panoramio.jpg

Author is Christine Linsdell, not the same as the Panoramio user A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment likely the wife (or girlfriend or relative) of the Panoramio user? I dunno how North American copyright systems deal with such instances. I'm more curious to the user comments in the metadata: "Ours. Do not have image print. Public. Google Earth Approved." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simone Martini e Lippo Memmi - Annunciazione e i santi Ansano e Massima, 1333, 1890 nn. 451, 452, 453.jpg

copy vio, this file taken from the Uffizi website can't be used as it infringes the museums copyright, as the file contains 3D elements. The upload of this file is expressively not covered by the PD-art tag Oursana (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question This isn't considered flat art, as a painting? It's not a sculpture or a relief, but a decorated triptych. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al McCoy Shirts at Phoenix Suns team shop.jpg

A bunch of words and names forming a broadcasting mic. A basketball firing up as a comet. I'm pretty sure the whole T-shirt is above COM:TOO US. And no, de minimis doesn't apply, especially when the photo focuses primarily on the T-shirt. George Ho (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In use, reasonably within scope. Not a derivative work per COM:CLOTHES. Dmartin969 (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspect, you must have overlooked what it says: In any case, care must be taken not to infringe the copyright of any printed or woven design that may appear on the clothing's surface. Clothes might not be copyrightable, but the design on the T-shirt may be. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not de minimis. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 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:Строители Центрального телеграфа в Москве. 4.09.1926.jpg

Questionable PD status, date of first publication missing to meet requirements of COM:Russia. As per description, taken from a family archive, so probably first published on Commons. Quick1984 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless otherwise indicated. --Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 00:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Строители Центрального телеграфа в Москве. 4.09.1926.jpg

Re-nominated with the same rationale, because it was closed with a clear contradiction to COM:EVID, COM:PCP and COM:HIRTLE: Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known – 120 years from creation.

So again: Questionable PD status, date of first publication missing to meet requirements of COM:Russia. As per description, taken from a family archive, so probably first published on Commons.

I don’t know who was meant by the word “we” above, so I’ll give a few similar examples:

Comment Re:"We": I copied @Yann word for word when I closed the Deletion request. And it's based on this Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_by_Pavel_Troshkin. As @Fae commented "Overly hypothetical doubts about copyright." The Precautionary Principal request significant doubt. COM:EVID is not written to address photos that are highly likely to be in the Public Domain. The Hirtle chart is specific to works published in the United States or made by Americans, and URAA specifically states that, "All other foreign works have their US copyright restored (according to US rules) if they were still in copyright in the source country (according to source country rules) on the relevant URAA date." If this was public domain on January 1, 1996, the relevant date in Russia, then it remains public domain. The test is whether this anonymous, possibly unpublished photograph was public domain in 1996, 73 years after the photograph was taken. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 07:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique, if you don't know the author's name, it doesn't make him anonymous. From a legal point of view, an anonymous publication is one where the author deliberately hid his name. --Quick1984 (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
‘’Unknown’’ author. The test still applies Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 07:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever wondered, if the creation of an artwork was automatically equated to its publication, why the laws of many countries specifically stipulate the date of first publication separately from the date of creation as the starting point for copyright? Since your opinion is at least questionable, I wondered what opinions other users would have. Quick1984 (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the sort of photo anyone would have taken for personal purposes, so I'd be quite confident in saying it was promptly published. - Jmabel ! talk 08:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:Russia does not distinguish the term of copyright depending on the purpose of creating an artwork, but clearly distinguishes between creation and publication. Quick1984 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:Russia is not applicable if the image fell into the public domain before 1996. Without known authorship (and it's highly likely the photographer was never credited), this work fell into public domain 50 years after first publication as per en:Copyright_law_of_the_Russian_Federation#Duration_of_copyrights, and there is no "significant doubt" that this image was soon published. Given the subject matter, and the expense of taking such an image in the Soviet Union, in 1926, there is no significant doubt that it was published soon afterwards, for use in a magazine, propaganda, or government report on the state of the Central Telegraph in Moscow. The burden on you is to provide that significant doubt, which not is something you have yet done. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, counting 50 years from the first publication, about which you know nothing, and forcing others to prove you wrong is a new word not only in copyright, but even in logic. Quick1984 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Significant doubt” not “theoretically possible”. That’s the policy here. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S., the question of publication was tortured since there was no single definition, but the most common definition that seems to be used, would make distributing photos to friends (with no restrictions) likely be publication. Taking a photo yourself and putting in your own album, no that is not publication. Giving copies outside the immediate family with no restrictions, very well could be. For a group photograph like this, since prints exist, you would assume they were distributed to many of the participants of the photo -- so yes that would be considered published from a U.S. perspective and thus public domain in the U.S. no matter how you slice it. So, no "120 years from creation" issues that I can see. If no name was present on the initial copies (which would be the prints like this), it should be anonymous. And the anonymous term would start from the "disclosure", not strictly "publication", given newer Russian law. I am far less sure on the subtleties of Soviet and current Russian law (at the time, there was no Soviet copyright, so it would have had to be retroactively given by newer laws). But, "theoretically possible" is not the same thing as "significant doubt". You really would need to show a significant doubt based on current Russian law about its copyright there. That seems like a stretch to me, at first glance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:New York State Department of Health

These images are derivatives of copyrighted packaging and New York State Department of Health is not the copyright holder.

Quick1984 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:لوكو سكوب مفرغ.png

شعار منظمة له حقوق Mohammed Qays 🗣 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which country is this logo from? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's from Iraq (the website URL has "iq" in it and is showing the weather in Bagdad[1]). Nakonana (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's no COM:TOO Iraq page, so what laws they have about that are anyone's guess. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek I'm from Iraq and logos have Copyright Mohammed Qays 🗣 19:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries have a threshold of originality for copyright in logos. Do you have any idea whether Iraq does? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek see https://moj.gov.iq/upload/pdf/قانون%20حماية%20حق%20المؤلف.pdf Mohammed Qays 🗣 20:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Mohammed. What I get from that document is that there is no such concept as threshold of originality in Iraqi law. Would you like to create a COM:TOO Iraq section of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iraq that links to this document and states that there is no concept of threshold of originality in Iraqi law? If not, do you agree with me, and is it OK for me to do so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VerbAbz3GebDivW.jpg

Urheber "Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe"? Das kann nicht sein. War die Wehrmacht eine KdöR? Passen die Angaben zur angeblichen Gemeinfreiheit? GerritR (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guten Abend GerritR, Du hast zweifellos recht - der Urheber ist unbekannt und höchstwahrscheinlich nicht mehr zu ermitteln. Ich habe das Verbandsabzeichen wie auch einige andere von einem Plakat der Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe abfotografiert, das vor ca. 50 Jahren veröffentlicht wurde. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blanche-monnier.png

Yanlış resim (Alınan kaynak hatalı yönlendirdi) Klingbeil16 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD old. Keep. 186.172.224.161 13:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banner of West Bengal.png

Wrong mime type Coolmaster69 (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE. I don't understand the problem, but why don't you fix it and upload your edit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image was deleted several times by consensus, e.g., Commons:Deletion_requests/Emblem_of_West_Bengal, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of the Government of West Bengal.svg, and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-10#File:Emblem_of_West_Bengal.svg. Günther Frager (talk) 22:03, 28 October 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:Sexy German Femboy In Private (52752460556).jpg

I got pointed towards a list of images, that appeared solely through unsolicited means on here. I don't neccessarily mean the bot, that's just crawling and doing its thing, but the fact that they were categorized as CC0 in the first place. Seemingly you can just choose it as a setting on Flickr. Had someone else manage that stuff, because I'm lazy and a yea-sayer. As for if it was intentional or not: I hope it wasn't, since it's a random assortment of pictures, but that's neither here nor there; everything and everyone involved is being scrubbed now. I think it's clear those pics have no place here and Wikimedia shouldn't be on anyone's mind as a first stop for private image hosting. Just put a checkmark next to this accident and it's back to usual business. Alice0815 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Free license at time of upload, has potential use. --Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sexy German Femboy In Private (52752460556).jpg

سکس در اماکن تاریخی در شهر 2A01:5EC0:2013:952C:8017:DCFF:FEA2:FCE8 12:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No potential (educational!) use... 186.172.224.161 13:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being very imaginative. The categories suggest possible uses. That said, if there are better alternatives, I wouldn't oppose deletion on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that there appears to be no problem about consent or license. And, yes, cross-dressing like this is a valid topic in human sexuality, and this illustrates it better than most. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eamposter.jpg

The fact that the author is unknown (?) doesn't necessarily mean that the file in question is copyrights free... 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 13:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it's untrue that "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Right now, the only available data we have (?) is the date of creation (i.e. 1942). However, we dont know the original creator or the original uploader of the file here on Commons didn't make any proper research regarding this matter. I'm not really sure whether the artist/designer (?) behind this propaganda poster died right on the spot so that it became public domain around 2012, however, this scenario doesn't look really plausible. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 21:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that the original uploader did not do their research? You need to have significant doubt about the copyright status. The author of this work also didn't have to die on the spot for this to be in the public domain. All that is needed is that the author's name was not disclosed at the time of publishing and 70 years after publishing. Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure. Nakonana (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:11news.jpg

out of scope logo HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it out of scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is unused and not likely to be ever used as it does not belong to any specific entity. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11 News is not a specific entity? OK, that's odd. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephan Breuer.jpg

Wrong photo Marcelduchamp26 (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:如何使用維基百科──以維基輔助我完成作業與報告.pdf

Own work claim, different author in metadata (author in metadata is "卓政興", uploader is "Jasonzhuocn"). No evidence that author and uploader are the same person.--125.230.85.73 16:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe there is sufficient reason to believe that the author and uploader are the same person. Firstly, there is the fact that the name "Jasonzhuocn" is visible in the file itself. Furthermore, their surnames match. 卓 (Chinese names have surname first) is pronounced Zhuo. It is not uncommon for Chinese people to have separate Chinese and English given names. TansoShoshen (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponožkový pár ze září 2020 1920x1080.jpg

promotion image of a sock manufacturer Gampe (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Also:[reply]

@Gampe: Please

Keep:

as those socks were used as a prize for winners of the Competition Czechoslovakia hosted by Wikimedia Czech Republic. I've renamed those 3 files to reflect the situation better. Thank you, --janbery (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No podle mě je to dost nešťastné promo, ale jak myslíš... Gampe (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vapaussodan muistomerkki Suodenniemi (05).jpg

URAA-case. Derivative work, unveiled in 1938, of Finnish sculptor Emil Cedercreutz (Wikidata:Q11857751), died in 1949. Free from copyrightt in Finland, but copyright restored in U.S. because of URAA, until 2034. Htm (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethel Payne in Shanghai.jpg

At the source page, the Library of Congress asserts that it has not evaluated the copyright in this image, and on the linked copyright page it explains that it does not possess any rights to items in its collections. Thus it couldn't make this photograph available under a CC0 dedication, even if it had in the past published the image with such a license statement. As it stands, if the image was not first published in the US (but for instance in China), it would still be copyrighted until 2069, and if published in the US, it would have to have been published without a copyright notice to have fallen in the public domain. There is no indication of this at the source or elsewhere, so the precautionary principle would in my opinion suggest deletion.. Felix QW (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esi-Lufo-me-dy-kupa-644793286.jpg

Claim of public domain, but no proof of how that is. Image is recent, has a watermark, and from https://www.shkodrasport.com/lufo-une-jamkrenare-dhe-falenderuese-qe-jam-pjese-e-nje-familje-te-tille-si-vllaznia/ RedPatch (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is from online, simple to look up. If it were not publicly useful, it would not have been online. Fedmonger (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being online does not mean it is in the public domain and not subject to copyright RedPatch (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Belomorkanal

Derivatives, COM:PACKAGING.

Quick1984 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a bit more complex. The original packaging design was made by the Leningrad artist Andrey Tarakanov (Андрей Тараканов). It showed three different canals on it (Belomor-Baltic, Kiel, and Suez canals). Neither of the nominated files has this design. The design was updated in the 1950s to only show Soviet canal with red lines for borders (of the USSR). This is the design we see in File:Belomorkanal gaspers pack. Avers and revers.jpg and File:Belomorkanalsav.jpg. The design was once again updated after the Soviet Union fell apart. This time the red lines that were symbolizing the borders were removed. That's the design we see in File:Belomorkanal cigarette box.jpg and File:Belomorkanal.JPG. Source for the info on the designs: [2][3]. So, we have two derivate works of a design which was created some time between 1932 and the 1950s, and the author's birth date and death date are not mentioned anywhere it seems (it's also a quite common name; there are several artists with that name, the oldest one I'm finding was born in 1898). Nakonana (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Indigirlag

Works of 1950s, bogus PD rationale: you can't count copyright term from the death of an unknown author.

Quick1984 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"you can't count copyright term from the death of an unknown author". Why not? Is the issue that we don't know whether the photographer died between 1952 and 1954? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far as i know, these pictures were taken by the man who died in that years. So maybe we should delete them, than wait for at least 10 years (the source can be erased due to some reasons of russian political situation, for example) and than upload? Author died somewhere in Indigirka, Boguchan, Oymyakon ragion in 50s, that for sure, but no proofs. It is unreal to proove it. I even cannot present my grandfather's death certificate, and he died in the 50s in Soviet Union.. - Zac Allan (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1954 is 70 years ago. Is that long enough to be in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man, i'm the author of these uploads and my second granddad is the victim of this gulag camp, being there 6-7 years and than lived nearby until 1970s. I'm definitely not the person who want it to be deleted, i know i'm right and it can be stoed here but have no strict proofs. I think it will bw deleted. - Zac Allan (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I will not upload it again here even if I asked. And third, i really thought about upload here my family's archive from 1977-1979 Afghanistan before war broke, USSR 1980-s and so on. I see no reason to do some work that can be erased any moment "just because". Let it burn. - Zac Allan (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should take your say-so, but I don't make decisions here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Gillray - Gillray Caricatures - B1977.14.21012V - Yale Center for British Art.jpg

Blank with no content Rathfelder (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... It's not exactly blank with no content. It's art (or at least the cover / front of the collection). See https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:54661. Nakonana (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty blank to me. Rathfelder (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as you can see in the link above it is part of the Yale British Art collection. Nakonana (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is an accident. Rathfelder (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they have two such images in their collection, if I'm not mistaken. So they made two accidents? Nakonana (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. We certainly can't call them Gillray caricatures. Rathfelder (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DGoIF-Logo.png

Unknown if it's own work, it's the logo of a local swedish football club. Kakan spelar (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WrigglerRR.jpg

Copyright violation. Nv8200p (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot understand this. The photo is mine, I released the game via my company Romantic Robot and I retain full copyright. The game also contains my own music plus my track The Moons of Jupiter, which still attracts a lot of attention on YouTube. I am listed on Wikipedia as is my company Romantic Robot. AGRR (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AGRR: My mistake. So sorry. Removing deletion request. Nv8200p (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Zac Allan (talk · contribs)

Derivatives of copyrighted 2D/3D artworks, no FoP in Belarus, Kazakhstan and in Russia (except architecture).

Quick1984 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah, even trivia like "Dvina named train, Polotsk-Moscow. Couchette car. Train schedule information desk..jpg" is no longer need to be here. I have no interest in these files and have no will to protect them. Delete bravely. - Zac Allan (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even Yerofey Khabarov monument must be deleted, though it is a culture heritage. Thats a victory. - Zac Allan (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mao Zedong and Richard Nixon.webp

If this image was first published in China, it will still have been in copyright at the URAA renewal date and will therefore be copyrighted in the US for many years to come. However, Alamy credits a version of this photograph to Keystone, and if Keystone (simultaneously) first published it in the US, and did so without a copyright notice, then it would now be PD in the US. In my eyes though, that is too much of a hypothetical to keep this image. Felix QW (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferdinand Porsche.jpg

1910s photograph, likely public domain in Germany, but we need evidence photographer died before 1954. Too young to assume photographer has been dead for 70 years. Abzeronow (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cassiopée au festival fierté Montréal 2019.png

Small low-rez 17 KB image by banned user Bull-Doser that is of very poor quality, below our minimum standards, I believe. Not used on any Wikipedia pages about the subject for that reason, perhaps. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this is the only photo of a singer covered by Wikipedia articles on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it is the only picture of that signer on Commons (that kind of argument should be rejected), the quality and resolution are so poor that it is out of COM:SCOPE. I am also not sure that it is Cassiopée on the picture. I couldn't find any other example of a picture of her looking like that on the net. --Myloufa (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Even if it is the only picture of that signer on Commons (that kind of argument should be rejected)"

Putting aside your doubts about who the photo depicts, it's shocking that you'd want to hide the only photo on Commons of someone famous. It's a very small photo, but it looks like it would be recognizable to someone who knows the person depicted. Now, if it isn't actually her, that's another question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: - Yes, but someone who knows the person depicted already *knows* what the person looks like, and that's a very low bar. The question is whether it shows that to someone who *doesn't*! Generally, we're willing to accept lower standards for a picture in the absence of any better examples, but it still has to be minimally useful.

As for this specific image, it's on the edge for me personally- as someone unfamiliar with her, it's hard to judge whether it actually shows me anything meaningful about her appearance beyond some very basic elements. Ubcule (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very tiny picture, but I think I could recognize her from it, and I don't know her. I agree that if it were any smaller, it would be unusable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good deletion reason, but did you take this photo, and did you take it on 19 March 2024? What kind of camera did you use? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Gillray - Spanish Patriots Attacking the French Banditti - Loyal Britons Lending a Lift^ - B1981.25.807 - Yale Center for British Art.jpg

Its blank. Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually some text if you look closely. Nakonana (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a watermark, not anything by Gillray. Rathfelder (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santuário Nacional 20161110.jpg

The metadata says "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Thiago Leon", but is uploaded under "Own work" by User:Arquidiocese. How do we know that Arquidiocese is Thiago Leon? Kakan spelar (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to delete the cropped file too if this one gets removed. // Kakan spelar (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be File:Santuário Nacional 20161110 (cropped).jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 07:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AmbasadaBraziliei.JPG

Per COM:FOP Romania, there is no freedom of panorama in Romania. This is a contemporary building. ✗plicit 23:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the argument you've provided, any and every picture of a building in Bucharest should be deleted within Wikimedia Commons.Aquintero82, (talk), 13:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Ships by name (category name check)

Obsolete summary with last update in 2013 (more than 10 years ago!) --Ein Dahmer (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]