Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:DEL/MT • COM:DEL/M

The publisher's name and publication date of the newspaper are missing, the copyright status of the license is still questionable. Astrinko (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. It was in Courier Express newspaper (Buffalo, NY) on December 10, 1973. I have added a citation to the Wikipedia article. Here is the link to the newspaper.
https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=coe19731210-01.1.53&srpos=16&e=------197-en-20-coe-1--txt-txIN-robert+heisner-------Cattaraugus%2cChautauqua%2cErie%2cGenesee%2cMonroe%2cNiagara%2cOrleans%2cWyoming-- Bushido77 (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After I traced the newspaper publishing company, it turned out that the Courier Express newspaper company was from the United States.

Oh yes, did the Courier Express newspaper warn of copyright infringement regarding newspapers produced around the 1970s? If the publisher does not provide a copyright notice, then the newspaper excerpt enters the public domain license using the license tag <<PD-US-pre1978>>, because the work was published in the United States between 1929 - 1977 without a copyright notice. Astrinko (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. If it's in use. Most of the ad doesn't meet COM:TOO United States copyrightability, and the clip-art portion of it is so blurry as to be indistinct and useless. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 04:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


мое фото, хочу удалить его Boundlessend (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Magazine cover from 2015 and no evidence it is uploader's own work; COM:PCP because it is likely copyrighted RA0808 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The photo was published in the 1960s and was taken in Slovenia. Is the photo still protected by copyright or has it entered the public domain in Slovenia? Astrinko (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1/ The idea to introduce the personality of A. Kočíková, born Martinková was mainly motivated by her life story, which began to unfold dramatically with the onset of normalization in Czechoslovakia after 1970. The political and social processes in this period had an adverse effect on her life destiny, so I believed that their approach has a wider justification.
2/ The article is based on the facts stated in the magazine Romboid - see References.
3/ I accepted the requests for the inclusion of links, in the References section there are 6 factual links.
4/ The photo was taken in Slovakia, it is not protected by copyright, as the copyright was given to me by donating the photo in question.
1/ Myšlienka priblížiť na stránkach Wikipedie osobnosť A. Kočíkovej, rod. Martinkovej bola motivovaná hlavne jej životným príbehom, ktorý sa začal dramaticky odvíjať nástupom normalizácie v Česko-Slovensku po roku 1970. Politicko-spoločenské procesy v tomto období mali neblahý vplyv na jej životné osudy, preto som sa domnievala, že ich priblíženie majú širšie opodstatnenie.
2/Príspevok je vytvorený na základe skutočností uvedených v časopise Romboid - viď Referencie.
3/ Požiadavky na zapracovanie odkazov som akceptovala, v oddiele Referencie je uvedených 6 faktografických odkazov.
4/Foto vzniklo na Slovensku, nie je chránená autorským právom, keďže autorské právami boli dané darovaním predmetnej fotografie. AdrianaDusana (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photo was taken by media without subject's consent during an unapproved/illegal photo line. This was not taken during a press conference. There is a single ingress/egress to the station. Any photos or statements were coerced as he needed to present to the station for investigation.

Photo lines in South Korea refer to the press line that forms outside of the police station. (https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/opinion/2024/08/638_262581.html)

In this particular case, press reported that police stated there would be no photo line. The media disregarded and gathered outside anyway.

"The police rejected a photoline, a legal way for the press to gather and address serious criminals. Despite this, reporters were seen lining up outside on August 22, 2024." https://www.desimartini.com/international/ott/army-have-the-last-laugh-bts-suga-does-not-appear-at-police-station-while-k-media-swarms-entrance-since-morning/10e1479f80842/

Per South Korean privacy/photography laws, consent is required to photograph and publish a picture. (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements) Jkking6 (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: Still available on CC-licensed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAazwHMO2NI. --Achim55 (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: In the source video, linked above, the subject is freely walking out of a building, in public, and stops in front of reporters to give a prepared statement into two awaiting microphones. Logically I would think that knowingly standing in front of reporters and photographers and giving a prepared statement constitutes implied consent.
The source given for "consent to photograph" in South Korea on Commons:Country specific consent requirements states that the subject simply needs to be aware that recording is happening in that location for implied consent to photograph to be assumed. I would argue there was no possibility that the subject did not know he was being photographed by speaking in front of a gaggle reporters.
A strong case could be made for "lack of consent to photograph" if the subject had attempted to avoid the reporters, ignored them, covered his face, or been surrounded by security, but given the fact that he stood in front of reporters and gave a prepared statement I think it's pretty clear that there was implied consent to photograph. RachelTensions (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating that "any photos or statements were coerced as he needed to present to the station for investigation" and that a photo line had not been permitted by the authorities.
It is a case of taking the path that would cause the least disturbance as he is acutely aware of the attacks to follow if he did any of the actions you listed. This is already evidenced by the articles from the day prior, when the press mistakenly assumed he was scheduled to report to the station and they accused him of not showing up and avoiding them, as well as threats made against him by reporters such as the following excerpt:
(https://tenasia.hankyung.com/article/2024081435074)
"앞선 가수 김호중의 사례처럼 취재진을 피하거나 따돌리는 경우가 발 생하면 오히려 반성의 진정성에 대한 의심을 살 가능성이 높다."
Machine translation:
"As in the previous case of singer Kim Ho-joong, if there is a case of avoiding or ostracizing the reporters, there is a high possibility of doubting the authenticity of reflection."
Essentially it boils down to 'show up and give us the statement and photos that we want or else we'll paint you a liar.'
Consent not given freely is not consent. Jkking6 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete: I agree with the argument - consent under duress isn't consent. I believe the upload was in good faith seeing as it complies with CC requirements but hearing more about the circumstances, I feel iffy in the file remaining. I also don't see the point in keeping this photo as I can't imagine it having any use on his or any other Wikipedia article in the future. The photo in itself isn't notable, it's just related to an incident of his that is notable, without providing any actual visual aid for it. Orangesclub (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete: Agree with the previous comment. The picture itself is not particularly good or high quality; we have better relatively current ones to use if needed.
WP:BLPIMAGE covers this: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Using this picture can create the false impression that he has been convicted of a crime, and/or that the situation is way worse than it is. We need to be extra careful with BLPs. I know the subject did not expect to be photographed part has been contested cause he spoke to journalists but, as other people have explained, there is a single entrance to the police station so avoiding the media was impossible. Moreover, refusing to publicly apologize in those circumstances is not really an option and pretty much expected from public figures. Coerced consent is not really consent. - Ïvana (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


https://www.fluminense.com.br/noticia/fluminense-acerta-a-contratacao-de-kevin-serna exact same user has uploaded exact same image as was deleted before (check my contribution history). This is a grave refusal of respecting others' copyrights, and of following Wikipedia Commons policy. Surely this is worth a block? Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, this image is the logo of a sports company, which is placed without considering the terms of fair use and with the wrong license AMiR SLiDER (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright Sudeep160 (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright Sudeep160 (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This photo has been edited without permission from the original owner Feryardi167 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Question Where can we see the original? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This rooster is an extraction of the cockerel from the painting Le coq hardi by Pierre Paulus (1913). This work falls within the scope of Belgian copyright law. (https://economie.fgov.be/fr/themes/propriete-intellectuelle/droits-de-propriete/droits-dauteur-et-droits/droits-dauteur/protection-des-oeuvres/duree-du-droit-dauteur). The rooster that can be used is the one from legal decree of Walloon Region Sthubertliege (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The actual painting, which the legal decree just traced, is also on Commons. Cfr. Category:Pierre Paulus
I no longer care enough to argue about the specifics of this. I will not resist this being deleted until 70 years after the death of Paulus, which is already at the end of this decade. And if in the meantime this spares me from the incessant spam in my inbox caused by Sthubertliege's bizarre edit wars, sock puppetry and vandalism, I'll be very happy indeed. Tom-L (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Old file The Sammirs (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Replaced the image with a better pic Cltjames (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Duplicate file with: 8-ⵎⴰⵢⵢⵓ.ZGH.png Aksel Tinfat (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Duplicate file with: 9-ⵎⴰⵢⵢⵓ.ZGH.png Aksel Tinfat (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Duplicate file with: 10-ⵎⴰⵢⵢⵓ.ZGH.png Aksel Tinfat (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The given website doesn't belong to Government of Bihar. It is a non profit website as stated which doesn't hold copyright of the image. Incorrect source. ShaanSenguptaTalk 17:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, the author is government of Bihar, because the Prs website has taken it from Bihar Vidhan Sabha website which is managed by Bihar Vidhan Sabha secretariat, falling under Government of Bihar's jurisdiction. It was first uploaded on Election Commission of India website by the candidate themselves while filing the nomination for election and w:Election Commission of India falls under jurisdiction of Ministry of Parliamentary affairs of Government of India. Hence 'GODL-India licence may also be applicable. (An example is File:Ram Ratan Singh.jpg, which was originally uploaded on Election Commission of India website and later on Bihar Vidhan Sabha website. It was reviewed by an Indian administrator who confirmed that it was available there at that time. You can find same image by typing Teghra Assembly constituency in Know Your MLA section of Bihar Legislative Assembly website. To Sum up, these images are free and can be uploaded under any of the two or three licences.) However finding it on Election Commission of India website is difficult. The stuff on prs website are available under CC Attribution 4.0 International license and it has been cleared by the administrators earlier like this one. File:Satyadeo Singh Kushwaha.jpg. PS: Prs uses only those stuff which are freely available, it hasn't there otherwise.Admantine123 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Admantine123 Always try to be brief. First copyright is with the one which publishes it first. Not every publisher is the copyright holder. Any image can have just one valid license. All others release it under the same license. Also the source you mentioned has nowhere stated that where have they taken that file from. Only if the original source is given then this file can be kept. ShaanSenguptaTalk 04:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many images from PRS are already cleared by multiple administrators as licence reviewed. How can we explain them ? I started uploading images from PRS only after I saw some of them getting reviewed. Otherwise I am happy with uploading the images from Government of Bihar website which are available under Attribution license. A large number of them are reviewed here on commons. I remember you also supported retaining of one such image which was nominated by someone. Admantine123 (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ofc I supported bcoz that was the right to do as it was coming directly from a website of the Govt of Bihar. But here it is taken from a different website which has nowhere mentioned about the source of the image from where it has been taken. Once it is clear, there won't be any problem. ShaanSenguptaTalk 06:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image misleading; uploader already flagged for making scientifically misleading images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Celestialobjects; Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 101#Celestialobjects). SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not delete it. It took work to create and upload. I do not understand why it is misleading. Is it because the pair is too close? It is a concept intended to depict the pair's overall appearance. It is my original work, and others may want to use it. This user nominated 20 of my images for deletion in 10 minutes. I am trying to improve my style. They claimed that the images were overly saturated, and while some had been copied from other sources, these were not. I don't see any reason for deleting these. Celestialobjects (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Above COM:TOO Switzerland. The UCL logo has been deleted before as copyvio as well.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is incorrect, The Empire of Japan uses the Hinomaru flag as it does today but it only became Japan’s national flag back in 1999. The army ensign should not be used as the flag of The Empire of Japan. The army flag is the Army ensign: NOT THE NATIONAL FLAG. RepublicOfKorea1945 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an accuracy disputed tag. Nakonana (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


這是一個錯誤的部徽且詆毀公家機關形象,並會造成其他使用者於網路搜尋時誤用,請刪除他。 A931404 (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know what this means or whether it's a deletion reason (Google translation): "This is a wrong emblem that denigrates the image of public agencies and may cause other users to misuse it when searching online. Please delete it." However, if this is under copyright, it wouldn't be a textlogo and should be deleted for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken in 1954, but the owner's name and country of origin are unknown. It is feared that the file is not yet included in the "public domain" license. Astrinko (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since).

I really see no reason to doubt the uploader's “own work” here.

 Comment This also affects other images by that uploader that have been tagged Εὐθυμένης. Msb (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosbatho: No Metadata or EXIF data is available to sustain the "own work" claim here. And the upload date of the said file(s) seems to be a quite recent one in order to claim that the technology wasn't that advanced back then, at the time of the original upload or of the photo shoot/take. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an image file has no EXIF data can sometimes indicate a copyvio under certain circumstances, but definately not in this case. Oftenly, the EXIF info is automatically removed by certain programs/apps automatically, or the user has selected settings that remove EXIFs by default.
In the case of this photo, IMO it is more than obvious that it was probably taken using an older digicam or smartphone - no problem at all. The image quality is accordingly. Furthermore, the image was claimed as “own work” from the beginning by the uploader (no reason to doubt that) and there is really no proof, not even an indication, that copyvio can even begin to substantiate. Msb (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mosbatho: Unfortunately, this has been proven multiple times on Commons, that uploaders tend to claim an image/file as "own work" despite it being not. 😕🤷‍♂️ Does this apply to every single case, though? Well, not necessarily... 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The EXIF issue is well known. But once again: the lack of EXIF information is not automatically a copyright problem. Be aware of that, please. Msb (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:ὐθυμένης, please read COM:DR: "small size and missing EXIF data" is not a deletion reason by itself (at best that is merely supporting evidence for copyvio). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. If we keep this file, we should seriously consider undeleting the other files by the uploader. All look like they have been tagged as "no source" by User:Εὐθυμένης, which was inappropriate to my mind, as the uploader claimed they were {{Own}} work. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No reverse image search hits on Tineye or Google Images for this file. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IronGargoyle: Unfortunately, many locally based websites or personal blogs in Greece, or websites in general, tend not to keep much archive from their past or simply disappear in the nature. This, in turn, means that - as an example - today I can download and keep a photo from a local news website, tomorrow this website in no more, and then afterwards, if the file in question can't be found anywhere else at least in equal or larger resolution, I can upload it and present it as a work of my own. I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, I'm just raising a general concern of mine, especially since I've seen quite a few websites coming and going during the most recent years in Greece, thanks to the crisis, among other factors. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are all fine arguments to bring up in a deletion request, but tagging these as "no source" when there is clearly a claimed source (own work) is problematic. In balance, the fact that the images of this uploader seemed to be around the same place and did not have other suspicious elements, would lead me to assume good faith. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Msb (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This image falls under category “Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack”. The image description makes inaccurate allegations and falsely relates the Azov logo with a nazi symbol, which even its creator has denied. Olivier101 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Irregular dimensions compared to typical BSicon files, not used in any RDT Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Şəkilin yerləşdiyi məqalə silinib. Zəhmət olmasa şəkilin özünü də silərdiniz. TahirGuliyev (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The logo is not copyrightable in the United States, but is copyrightable in its country of origin (China), because logos that use traditional Chinese characters are considered copyrightable. Astrinko (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


He breaks the rules Liadtalker 1234 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The C is quite stylized so indeed likely above COM:TOO Italy. Jonteemil (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation group. The file is categorized as out of scope, has no educational value. Astrinko (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


At the request of the Administrator. EMILIO ZA (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Eu adicionei outra imagem do dicionário, como se pode ver em https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grande_Dicion%C3%A1rio_Sacconi_2.jpg. Também, a foto é de minha autoria Leandro M800 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, true. I've blurred the restaurant logo. // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This map is copywritten material; per Frost it is owned by Pearson Education and was only used with express permission: https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/files/2009/01/frost_european_eye_color2.jpg it was previously deleted on a different upload, but the deletion page is (with explanation) is here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eye_colors_map_of_Europe.png A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Depicts a copyrighted character (Rick Sanchez) in detail. Bonus Person (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The date of death of the author is unknown, it cannot be confirmed that the file is in the public domain. Astrinko (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to US federal copyright law, fair use includes the use of a photo for educational purposes, research, criticism, comment and news reporting. One factor in determining fair use is whether it is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit purposes. In this instance I have uploaded it for inclusion on a forthcoming Wikipedia page detailing the life of the author of the original novel behind "Christmas in Connecticut", so its use is both educational and not for profit. Fearless6 (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also safe to assume from published photos the author is now either dead or over 120 years old. Fearless6 (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FAIRUSE does not exist on Commons, whose COM:Licensing terms require commercial use to be acceptable under copyright laws. en.wikipedia and some of the other Wikipedias do allow fair use under specified conditions. However, was publicity for American films ever copyrighted, when that required registration? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use files should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, as fair use files are still under copyright protection. Wikimedia Commons cannot accept copyrighted content unless the copyright owner allows the file to be freely re-shared. Astrinko (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commons:Deletion requests/File:2020 Karabakh conflict collage.jpg

I find it highly unlikely that Rewards for Justice is creator of this photograph. Discostu (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MeirKovner, Are you the creator of the picture? It's a shame that the image used on many wiki sites will be deleted. Neriah (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is property of the United States government, which is free for dispersal. Rewards for Justice is a government organization, and if they didn't own the rights to the photo, they wouldn't have been able to print wanted posters, and send the photo to the masses with hope of identification. This should not be deleted, in accordance with copyright law. MeirKovner (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The user @MeirKovner you are right. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 17:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


У изображения должно быть право на добросовестное использование. А у обычных пользователей право выкладывать изображение альбома или другого вида искусства нельзя Simplyhuman05 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyrighted, from Araldicacivica.it (with license CC-BY-NC-ND, source: https://www.araldicacivica.it/provincia/grosseto/) Ashoppio (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Perché la foto ritrae il Ponte San Francesco di Paola, comunemente chiamato Ponte Girevole Giacomo Resta (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Creí que esta imagen era PNG, pero tiene un fondo negro. Rocky god (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Droit d'auteur requis NalKy (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


صورة لها حقوق  Mohammed Qays  🗣 18:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright Rani.namb (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No license. 103.185.24.249 15:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is copyrighted Sayon Hazra (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had claimed it was your own work when you uploaded it. Can you clarify? Platonides (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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


Because I accidentally added too much Brolpgras421 (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Wrong depiction of the coat of arm Ad1194 (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Old version Adiiitya (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Old version Adiiitya (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Licenza errata, opera derivata senza specificare la fonte che è evidentemente un libro o una pubblicazione, originariamente probabilmente cartoline delle quali non si conosce l'autore né il periodo dello scatto. Threecharlie (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Translate: "Incorrect license, derivative work without specifying the source which is evidently a book or a publication, originally probably postcards of which the author and the period of the shot are unknown."
  •  Keep Here we have a pic of pic. The original looks like a postcard circa 1940 or earlier. Italy only awards 20 years of exclusivity. --RAN (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was just a typo, no one would actually use it Technetium 99m (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyrighted work. The Ukrainian painter died in 1983. See d:Q12105106. Nakonana (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Is this logo below COM:TOO in the United States? https://www.facebook.com/CakesToSuitYou/about Nakonana (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated information Coolmaster69 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep Blatantly invalid deletion request. File has ca 2'000 globas uses. Rename to File:Emblem of West Bengal (Banglarmukh) before 2018.png instead. Bad history: his log log Taylor 49 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment After ca 10 attempts with wild errors I succeeded to rename the file. -- Special:GlobalUsage/..West_Bengal_Flag(INDIA).png -- en:Emblem_of_West_Bengal -- en:File:Emblem_of_West_Bengal_(2018-present).svg deleted here Commons:Deletion requests/Emblem of West Bengal -- Taylor 49 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment All over 2000 uses switched over to the new name. The redirect can be safely deleted, the file must not. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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]


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


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: [1][2]. 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]

Can you Please delete this image? I uploaded it here because I wanted to take part in a competition but I would like if My photo Would be deleted. Thank you in advance Letizia.snd (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I would like this picture to be deleted because I uploaded it here because I wanted to take part in a competition but I would like if My photo Would be deleted. Thank you in advance Letizia.snd (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I would like this picture to be deleted because I uploaded it here because I wanted to take part in a competition but I would like if My photo Would be deleted. Thank you in advance Letizia.snd (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I would like this picture to be deleted because I uploaded it here because I wanted to take part in a competition but I would like if My photo Would be deleted. Thank you in advance Letizia.snd (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by GoldRoger487 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Offensive
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. Rationale needs elaboration. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone is offended by the hammer and sickle. That's totally OK, but serious reference sites don't delete important symbols and images just because they may be offensive. Can you imagine if Wikipedia were restricted to inoffensive subjects? It would become utter pablum, rather than an encyclopedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should no longer be deleted as it is the flag of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions and not a joke about the romanian polician Florin Citu.
I will add Category:Centre of Indian Trade Unions and Category:Flags of trade unions in India categories beside the current ones.GoldRoger487 (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was used in an article but the information is outdated and is no longer relevant or useable anywhere, it was my own work and I used to upload new versions instead of updating RamiPat (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fictitious insignia? I can't find anything on this "Battalion named after Markov" (Батальонъ им. Маркова), neither via Google nor via Yandex nor via reverse image search. To top it of, there's a typo in the insignia (батальонъ should actually be written as батальон — the last letter does not belong there; the first uploaded version of this file actually had the correct spelling of the word). Nakonana (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fictitious political party logo? Reverse image search doesn't find any hits for this logo. The file description claims that this is the logo of the Progress Party of Russia, however, the only Progress Party of Russia that I'm aware of is the one of Alexei Navalny, and their logo is different: File:Progress Party logo.svg. Nakonana (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not clear pic Soumava2002 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fictitious party / logo? Can't find anything on that party or this logo. Same for File:POSDP.svg. Nakonana (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the following files by the same user might be connected to the above (see file history): File:PSDSenegal.svg, File:POSDPflag.png, File:Trace.ru.svg. They also seem to be fictitious. Just some randomly picked Cockade.[3] Nakonana (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fictitious flag of Austria? Uploaded while editing a now non-existent article on "White Austria" on Ru Wikipedia. Looks like it consists of an Austria flag combined with some free clip art flower from the internet[4][5]. Nakonana (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Es extremadamente falso,no es la bandera original ,la bandera no viene con esos colores 🌈 Rexenticford (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El escudo es extremadamente falso,ha Sido modificado y además no tiene esos colores 🌈 Rexenticford (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{ subst : delete3 |pg=File:Primer escudo de Oriente Petrolero.png}} — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 177.222.37.49 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Primer_escudo_de_Oriente_Petrolero.png[reply]


لانه ليس لي بل صوره من جوجل ولا اعرف صاحبه ملوكا (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


ظهور اشخاص لا يرغبون بالظهور على الانترنت Cestsalam (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Imported from Man8rove for draft Thibaud4141 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No muestra la imagen. Maximum 1995 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep I cannot explain what happened to the image, but this seems to be a Commons-wide problem as I've seen it happen to other files over the last few months as well. The file will need to be repaired. Fry1989 eh? 19:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foto desatualizada Luccas 31 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


It's a mistake that's Edgar Allan Poe not his dad IceStorm 54 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Normally, I'd say rename and correct/update the info, but we have several versions of the same portrait: File:Edgar Allan Poe; a Centenary Tribute - Portrait of Edgar Allan Poe p32.png and File:Edgar Allan Poe by John Sartain, 1849, mezzotint and engraving on paper, from the National Portrait Gallery - NPG-S-NPG 78 36.jpg and File:Edgar A. Poe (NYPL Hades-255666-430693).jpg. If an additional oval, cropped version is needed, a better quality version could be extracted from one of these. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not clear pic Soumava2002 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The user usually don't submit good-quality photos compared to average photos uploaded by many other Indian users, which often lead me to doubt whether the photos are taken by him (yes, Soumava, a variant of Soumyabha, is a male name). Some of the photos are aerial shots. Let me ping him to confirm it. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribsuploads) 12:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any comment, User:Soumava2002? Are the photos you submit photos you shot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nu, User:Soumava2002? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This page violates the information security of the Israel Defense Forces. External parties can use this information against the IDF, and harm the current security of the state by using this information. It should be remove from the IDF page, and delete this file. Nivst (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite late. The file has been here since 2009; the current version since 2013. Nakonana (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This symbol is not used on a black background. The correct version of the symbol has been uploaded. Ted071203 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This logo is not used on a yellow background. The correct version of the logo has been uploaded. Ted071203 (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


لقد أخطأت وقمت بتحميل الخريطة الخطأ محمود سالم شامي (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is Isaksen Solar's photo. We did not authorize the uploading of this photo. We reserve all rights to this image. Rcross12 (talk) 12:18, 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.

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. plicit 07:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality teddy bear photo, we had better choices in the category A1Cafel (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Está duplicado GermanV1981 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Archivo duplicado GermanV1981 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:ListFiles/GermanV1981 When claiming dupe please always reveal of what.  Speedy delete as dupe of File:Logo Canal7.png. And  Speedy delete File:Canal 7 TV Logo 196px.jpg as well. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright Yisel alitane (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Robert Dobson (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not clear pic Soumava2002 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not clear pic Soumava2002 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by $arthakP as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Taken from: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2709816595798731&id=1628205197293215&set=a.1649420061838395 May be old enough. Yann (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


presence de marque de telephone Bile rene (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Watermarks are discouraged but not on their own a reason to delete; source image for a cropped version without the watermark. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The image has been taken off of any liscence that allows it to be shared. As a note, the image is included in the Wikipedia article for w:22 Short Films About Springfield in its english, portuguese & spanish editions, all classificiated as good articles, so something needs to be done about that. LucasMRB (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Changing the license on Flickr after the fact doesn't revoke the CC license that it was originally posted with. Omphalographer (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Flickr does have documented license history now. This file was originally licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Parce que j'ai plusieurs comptes wikipédia Inocente futuro maestro de español (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Official Flag of a political party. Need to establish the link with the uploader to know if they have made it. Otherwise the rights must be with the political party. ShaanSenguptaTalk 09:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark of Planet Belarus. We can find original file at page https://planetabelarus.by/map/belarus/grodnenskaya-oblast/grodno/ . Dinamik (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Low resolution image. It looks like photo was taken from https://dzen.ru/a/YBjt7Y0wyxeA3xtR (https://avatars.dzeninfra.ru/get-zen_doc/1900370/pub_6018eded8d30cb1780df1b51_601927c3b19d82187eff7dff/scale_720). Dinamik (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I am the copyright owner of this ANSON084 (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Inaccurate map with no sources or references, such figures can never found as no data is recorded of such a group and wrong countries are highlighted giving false information Abu Ayyub (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kesalahan pada berkas Trivalprim (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for deletion given ("Kesalahan pada berkas" means "Error in file", useless in the context), unsure whether in scope. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not own work Heylenny (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The uploader wishes to repost this file with no changes except for removing the image title section. Sl4d56 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The author had uploaded a new version: File:Sylheti Map.png while it should have been uploaded in this file as there were multiple uploads, the new file is more detailed and accurate Abu Ayyub (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Это фото устарело Lysenkov Alexey (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


It needs to be evaluated whether the depicted piece of text is (or not) above threshold of originality. Canada has no freedom-of-panorama exception for 2D-works. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Same problem with File:Musée de la civilisation Québec 54.jpg

Not Donnie Wingo Bradleyrmcelroy (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Vaild PD license. The category can be changed and the file removed from wikidata, if the photo is not Donny Wingo. I do not know if that person is correctly identified. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hay que proceder a su eliminación — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurasanchez27 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sé adecúa a los criterios de derechos de autor Laurasanchez27 (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is not the ruins of Banu Shah Agar Fort. This is an image of the Castle of Montearagón. ফারদিন (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The important issue is copyrights, though. 200.39.139.20 15:06, 6 November 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.

Auchenmade Station House is a completely different property, not the one shown in the photo. Auchenmade Station House is a short distance away Callieallieduskvalley (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't be the station. I have intended it to be described as the station master's home or that of the railway agent. Few photographs survive of the station and the stationmaster's house was not there. Rosser1954. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Just change description or use {{Fact disputed}}. --P 1 9 9   15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deliveries & clients & anyone who can't find us Google Auchenmade Station House & this comes up. Please change or update your file name to address this. Auchenmade Station House exists. This isn't it. Callieallieduskvalley (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep Not a deletion reason, and you yourself can edit the file description and request COM:File renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Зробив нову версію прапора Potemkovskiy_Vladislav (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I uploaded it a year ago, after buying the photo on Shutterstock or Adobe, not sure anymore. It is not my own work and now I know that photos uploaded on Wikimedia commons must be my own work, or at least not being affected by copyright. I don't want to steal the photo or break any law or rule, which I did by uploading the photo. Please remove it ASAP. Thank you and sorry for not reading the rules correctly! Maddock13 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Exaggerated, the Sultanate did not go that far south, it never even came close to Mangalore. The map was made by a malicious Sockpuppet and should be deleted in order to prevent any confusion from happening (it has already happened once). AlvaKedak (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


..................... Teymur Mammadov34 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Teymur Mammadov34, why did you create your userpage if you didn't want it? Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Advertising only without verification. JAMKUM (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JAMKUM: , can you clarify what you meant by that? Psubhashish (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Wedding not for any public use JAMKUM (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep privacy is not important, because it's just a COM:Non-copyright restrictions. "Weak keep", however, since I am uncertain if the possibly-copyrighted décor shown passes COM:FOP India (as a "work of artistic craftsmanship"). If it's not meant to be a permanent décor, then the Panoramio import needs to be deleted, unfortunately. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


mistakenly uploaded, new files will be shared soon Itsmeaasifqureshi (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


False copyright claim – picture downloaded from Instagram Ambiroz (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Torquemada no era inquisidor? 200.39.139.29 15:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Torquemada is also a family name. Either way, not a reason for deletion. However I am unsure of it this is in project COM:SCOPE - photo of person lying on a floor, may be part of a series of a theater production? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal reason Gurdialraushan (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is a duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Capilla_de_Santa_Catalina_(San_Mart%C3%ADn_Pinario).jpg Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not clear pic Soumava2002 (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyrighted image Lolulu09877 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image was published under a free licence on Flickr, as evidenced by the Flickr review bot. William Avery (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image of a fake plastic looking face Lolulu09877 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for deletion. This request appears to be a response to the uploader of this image having nominated some of the requester's images for speedy deletion. William Avery (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, if this is the only photo we have of a famous person, it should be kept. I didn't realize she had a claim to fame or that there was a Wikipedia article about her. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There may or may not be better ones on Commons, I don't know. The reason why the Arab wiki is using this photo right now is that it's transcluded from Wikidata where I added the photo today when I googled this person and found the Wikidata item on her. There might be more photos of her in similar untelling categories as "Arab women". Nakonana (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Должен быть удален по причине трагедии в семье Natalia Pakhomenko (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep Google translation: "Must be removed due to family tragedy". Not possible. COM:INUSE and duly licensed. My sympathies on the tragedy, but it's not relevant to keeping the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weird nomination. The depicted women has been dead since 2013, and the depicted men since August 2023. The filer also made an edit to the relevant category with a weird edit summary[6]: "Уничтожены портреты народной артистки , которые подменили на бракованные фото , которые не могут быть лицом ее Википедии" (Translation: Portraits of the People's Artist have been destroyed and replaced with defective photos that cannot be the face of her Wikipedia article). Nakonana (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Глумление над памятью певицы Natalia Pakhomenko (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The uploader of the image stated that she had received consent to use the image from the person in it, but is that enough when it is apparently a screenshot from the Finnish Stand Up television show? Luurankosoturi (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The image is credited to VCG which is a media agency, hence it is almost certain that the image is copyrighted not released under a CC-BY license as is claimed. ChromeGames (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Delete it t Goldmoney10 (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Taken from VN Express, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Taken from VN Express, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commons:Deletion requests/User talk:Praju Ramasamy

Photo of non-free work. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photo of non-free texts extracted from non-free books. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]



This file is a duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Retablo_de_Santa_Catalina_(San_Mart%C3%ADn_Pinario).jpg Enciclopedia1993 (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


رفعت عن طريق الخطأ رِفْد (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not OK. For copyrighted 2D (paintings, drawings, maps, pictures, engravings, etc.) per COM:FOP India Ooligan (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The file is clearly Bung Karno di Tengah Perang Revolusi by Dullah and isn't own work 110.137.192.180 07:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I made it but Its usless now Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why or how is it useless? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This too needs deletion Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made it but Its usless now Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I made it but Its usless now Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I made it but Its usless now Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I probably did a mistake in the way of uploading this, please delete it as now the file: (File:Hamoon Khelghat-Doost -Flickr.jpg) exists RamiPat (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal photo by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY. Astrinko (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete poor quality Dronebogus (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal photo by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY. Astrinko (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Procedural keep In use on en.wiki, and it appears to be a valid use. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.  Keep. This one is definitely one of the "in scope" type of nudity images. Nakonana (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Yep. COM:INUSE, and even if not, I'd argue that it should probably be kept as useful if it were really the uploader's photo. However, the Metadata says only "Software used: gnome-screenshot." So why do we think this is really User:Rogerthat9001's own work as claimed? The combination of the metadata and the size suggests to me that this is likely to have been stolen from some website, so I support deletion unless the uploader can convince COM:VRT that they shot the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, yes I took the photo (and the others I have uploaded), with the consent of the two individuals in the photos. The reason the metadata says screenshot is simply because rather than edit the image I took a screenshot in order to crop it. Please feel free to reverse image search the image. I cannot provide a non cropped image as this will show the individuals face, however perhaps I can upload a version with the original metadata intact. Thank-you for agreeing with regard to the usefulness of the photo, there are many images of breasts on the commons however the vast majority of these are not particurly useful as they are taken from a distance - this may also be the only image showing the use of a breast pump on the commons. Rogerthat9001 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Contact VRT, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I assume good faith here and this is obviously not porn because it shows breasts being used for their intended purpose. Dronebogus (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY. Astrinko (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also tending  Keep. Calling someone a "non-contributor" who just registered today and has already uploaded several images which aren't just exhibitionist in nature but might have educational value (like demonstration of a manual breast milk pump) might be a bit premature. Those are clearly not personal photos as they show at least two different women. (In that regard, what's probably more concerning is the lack of EXIF data.) Nakonana (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep has educational value, not everything is automatically porn Dronebogus (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal photo by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY. Astrinko (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also tending  Keep. Calling someone a "non-contributor" who just registered today and has already uploaded several images which aren't just exhibitionist in nature but might have educational value (like demonstration of a manual breast milk pump) might be a bit premature. Those are clearly not personal photos as they show at least two different women. (In that regard, what's probably more concerning is the lack of EXIF data.) Nakonana (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. "Gnome-screenshot" is the sum total of the Metadata. I will not call for keeping this photo unless the uploader clearly shows this isn't actually just a screenshot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, to copy and paste what I posted on the breast pump discussion: Yes I took the photo (and the others I have uploaded), with the consent of the two individuals in the photos. The reason the metadata says screenshot is simply because rather than edit the image I took a screenshot in order to crop it. Please feel free to reverse image search the image. I cannot provide a non cropped image as this will show the individuals face, however perhaps I can upload a version with the original metadata intact. Thank-you for agreeing with regard to the usefulness of the photo, there are many images of breasts on the commons however the vast majority of these are not particularly useful as they are taken from a distance - this one may also be the only which shows areolar enlargement, which is an important physiological change during pregnancy. Rogerthat9001 (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say definitely provide that metadata to COM:VRT, and thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep educational, non-prurient image. Dronebogus (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File created as advertisement. Astrinko (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I will share my photo another day with article Aygunmirz (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that occasion please use a real own work or a PD photo. 200.39.139.6 16:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not my own work, but comes from another site. Astrinko (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File created as advertisement. Astrinko (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


{{Delete}} Davidroman201005 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Self deletion RadoGaming7 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The name of author and the date death of author this image are not mentioned. Worried that the image is still under copyright protection. Astrinko (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the name of the author, which is a goverment corporation, non profit, payed by taxpayers. The sourse explicit says: "complete or partial reproduction authorized, as long as the source is mentioned." Page 2 at the bottom. P4blogarcia (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP in Slovenia, architect Vinko Glanz died in 1977 A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by 1.33.123.150 as no source (No source since) Krd 03:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is screenshot of television broadcast, possibly copyrighted. Astrinko (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is screenshot of television broadcast, possibly copyrighted. Astrinko (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There is a copyrighted game screenshot on the photo. Astrinko (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete Yes, derivative works. 茅野ふたば (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I uploaded it by mistake Andreslence20 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andreslence20 (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lo subí por error Andreslence20 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete user req (only 12 days later). Taylor 49 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File created as advertisement, advertisement from Japan. Astrinko (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal video by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY Astrinko (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The name of the photographer and the photographer's date on this photo are not mentioned, the copyright license is doubtful. Astrinko (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright infringement, the freedom of panorama does not apply to temporary works of art in Germany. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This media is out of scope. Astrinko (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Wrong image Zhemkun (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not my own work, this image comes from another site. Astrinko (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not my own work, this image comes from another site. Astrinko (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file is from a copyrighted video capture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ-oEuWMszs) Astrinko (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File created as advertisement Astrinko (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The description of this file actually contains promotions/advertisements for agricultural businesses from Vietnam. Astrinko (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a deletion reason, as the description can be edited. The question is whether this is a logo of a notable company. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not my own work, this image comes from another site. Astrinko (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope, no educational value. Astrinko (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Non-free logo, meets copyright protection thresholds. Astrinko (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyvio? Name of uploader does not match name in EXIF data. Nakonana (talk) 23:01, 20 November 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.

I uploaded it by mistake RcAmAr78 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Random nude photo, act as exhibionism, not educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete we have enough nude hombres Dronebogus (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So will my cup picture get deleted too? TheNuggeteer (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is 2D poster, COM:FOP Philippines not apply for the posters. 茅野ふたば (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNuggeteer to define the deletion request in another way, the Philippine copyright law (RA 8293) does not provide a Freedom of Panorama provision that allows copyrighted public art (including posters as public artworks) as well as architectures found in public to be freely shared and distributed without permission from the works' authors (like architects, sculptors, painters, or graphic designers), something that the copyright law of Malaysia allows, or even that of North Korea. This image infringes the poster artist's copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


likely copyrighted art Ooligan (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This photo comes from Malaysia. Under the Malaysian Copyright Act of 1987, copyright expires after 50 years of the death of the author, or an image published anonymously more than 50 years ago. This photo was taken in 1974, it will not enter the public domain until 2025. Astrinko (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This photo comes from Malaysia, the name of photographer this image is unknown. Under the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987, copyright expires after 50 years of the death of the creator, or an image published anonymously more than 50 years ago. This photo was taken in 1979, it will not enter the public domain until 2030. Astrinko (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This photo comes from Malaysia, the name of photographer this image is unknown. Under the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987, copyright expires after 50 years of the death of the creator, or an image published anonymously more than 50 years ago. This photo was taken in 1979, it will not enter the public domain until 2030. Astrinko (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This photo comes from Malaysia, the name of photographer this image is unknown. Under the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987, copyright expires after 50 years of the death of the creator, or an image published anonymously more than 50 years ago. This photo was taken in 1978, it will not enter the public domain until 2029. Astrinko (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This photo comes from Malaysia, the name of photographer this image is unknown. Under the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987, copyright expires after 50 years of the death of the creator, or an image published anonymously more than 50 years ago. This photo was taken in 1978, it will not enter the public domain until 2029. Astrinko (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal photo by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY. Astrinko (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I (author), no longer require the file to be on the commons Terran90015 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Astrinko (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file is believed to be non-free. Astrinko (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal, low quality photo by non-contributor, missing any context information. Nakonana (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Erroné endommagé PEG6942 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


同じ画像があるため かなえゆうじん (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]