Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/16

15 October 2024

17 October 2024

Deletion requests on 16 October 2024

October 16

File:VolkerFerkauAutorDeutschland3.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Känguru1890 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 07:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep there is no reason for "no permission" Emha (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruwiki.png

Tagged speedy, but a consensus is needed to adjust the proper screenshot. My suggestion is to blur some de minimis parts of the screenshot. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination due to no consensus. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK SSP 深水埗 Sham Shui Po 黃金電腦商場 Golden Computer Acrade 高登電腦 basement shop 華碩電腦 ASUS laptop June 2022 Px3 03.jpg

This file was initially tagged by メイド理世 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted Windows screenshot in Hong Kong Yann (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The screen may be blurred, but what's the object of the picture? Yann (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the laptop itself, but there's very little of it clearly visible in the photo. Good photos of laptops are common enough; I don't think it's worth trying to salvage this one. Omphalographer (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koengen Obere Neue Str. 33.jpg

WRuss war mein alter Name, ich will das Bild durch ein Bild ohne Schatten ersetzen LupusDe (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PoEI-Cover.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The (bland) cover page of some sort of publication, with no information about copyright/licencing
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. IMO a blank cover-page merely with the title of the book is not above COM:TOO and thereby not copyrightable. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief text on blue background is not copyrightable. The image is currently used in a draft; if the draft is deleted in the future it may become a matter of scope instead. Thuresson (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Unia Andres Vicharra Moncada (talk · contribs)

Does Commons:Freedom of panorama in source country allow this?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes. COM:FOP Peru. Why would you request deletion without even trying to figure out which country was in question and look at the link to their FOP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Country must be stated in description, categories and FOP-related template. Why this was not done is question to uploader. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good excuse. It's not hard to find out where Pucallpa is, and the first category of the first photo in this list is Category:Education in Peru. Do a little research before requesting deletion based on the possibility that you've blindly hit on a country that has no commercial FOP. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three out of five files do not have categories. You also had two years (since files were uploaded) to fix this problem yourself, but somehow you did not use this chance. Please also read Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I had a chance to do something with these files? Do you also not know who the photographer/uploader of the files is? My position is simply that someone nominating files for deletion should do the most basic kind of research about them first. But that's not your way. You would rather shoot first and then get upset when others ask questions later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My position, that is that if you want perfect Commons maintenance, please start do it yourself. And others could also see your false-positive and false-negative rates. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's important to you to delete things that shouldn't be deleted, on some kind of weird principle you have. My position is that the person who would nominate files for deletion has the responsibility of doing the most basic research on them. You didn't have any idea where the photos were taken and acted like because I responded negatively to the deletion request, I had taken the photos. When do you think I became aware of these photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, looking at the files again to see whether they need some updated categories, I clicked on Category:Shipibo-Conibo. Why don't you click on it, too? Then you'll know what the category is and what country it's relevant to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that kind of rationale we could (and should) just delete everything in Category:Media needing categories and all it's subcategories. Those files have been uncategorized and without mention of any country of origin for far longer than just two years. But I suspect if anyone would actually dare to nominate all those files for deletion with that rationale they would likely end up landing on some notice board for disruptive deletion requests because media being uncategorized or not mentioning country of origin are not valid reasons for deletion (or at least I'm not aware of any such policy). Nakonana (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are "just" around 500,000 files in the subcategory Category:Files needing categories by year, starting in 2017 (seven years ago). Are you really suggesting to just delete them all because they lack categories and statements about the country of origin...? Nakonana (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, he does want to delete all of them, and it's certainly true that he was blocked for a time for disruptive deletion requests. If I had been in his position, I would have said "You're right. Sorry for not checking on that and thanks for taking the time to do so." But I don't know if I've ever seen him admit an error, let alone thank anyone for pointing it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff Manto - Midland Angels - 1988.jpg

Copyvio. Although the uploader's direct source of this image is from this card which is in the public domain, the photo used on that card was stolen from this card (which was published with a copyright a year earlier) and simply mirrored vertically. That isn't transformative. The underlying photo is copyrighted. Denniscabrams (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:U&eden (2024).svg

This is a logo that originated in the United Kingdom, which has a very low threshold of originality. There area few things (like the way the "d" and the "n" are constructed) that make me suspect that this image might be over that threshold, meaning that {{PD-textlogo}} would not apply. For this reason, I am bringing this logo up for discussion in light of the precautionary principle. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that what the logo really looks like? Don't be satirical on a website that's serious MoeTheMan2015 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'd' and 'n' construction is the default of the commercial font which is Right Grotesk. Also, other uploads of British logos uses this Public Domain template. TangyBase (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right mate. 2A02:C7C:4704:8500:5D26:E0D7:DBCB:44AD 16:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No clear reason to justify the deletion. It's just satirical argument about the deletion of this logo, and according to many users, this logo using the standard font (which is Right Grotesk). Regardless whether the font are slightly modified or not, it does not eligible for copyright, even in the UK themselves (unless there's significant commentary regarding artistic value of the typeface). Yayan550 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minh Hang 2021, Super challenging.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Khangofficial as Copyvio (Db-f1) and the most recent rationale was: url=https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1846348578902412. Converting to DR, previously deleted and undeleted by admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:柯慶施市長.jpg

1950 Chinese photograph, although PD in China, it would have been restored by URAA. Undelete in 2046. Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adelheidvsaldern 2023.png

This file was initially tagged by Känguru1890 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission by shown person or photographer. --Känguru1890 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buckhofblecking1.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Känguru1890 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission by shown person or photographer. --Känguru1890 (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diethelm Blecking.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Känguru1890 as no permission (no permission since) Krd 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission by photographer or person depicted. Is that enough of an explanation. Why does no permission not work on this? It was uploaded by a random user. How would I know if this is an edge case or not? --Känguru1890 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the principle of assuming good faith, meaning that we believe an uploader's claims, unless there's "significant" doubt about the freedom of a file (COM:PCP), because of, for example, a clear statement in the exif data that claims copyright, or because you found the image on the internet where it was published before it got uploaded to Commons, or because there's no freedom of panorama in the relevant country, etc.

Consent of the depicted person is not per se required but in some countries it might be mandatory. Nakonana (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Justice League - Wonder Woman Saves The Day - DC Kids.webm

I believe this is copyrighted. 76.23.164.244 17:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You'd think so, but the video was indeed uploaded to YouTube as CC-BY by an official DC account. Omphalographer (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Meanna

Out of scope?

Trade (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in scope. Examples of music genres, useful, examples of music in Russian, etc and more useful than most other audio files. Also COM:INUSE. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked out all the files, but which ones are COM:INUSE on public pages? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public? Trade (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Being used on user pages isn't really COM:INUSE, is it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be in scope. The official website of the city of Tomsk (which is not the singer's city of origin btw) calls the singer "the mother of abstract rap" (https://www.tomsk.ru/news/view/148236-Mrachno-gluboko-i-poetichno-kontsert-materi-abstraktnogo-repa-v-Tomske), and the singer got also some mention in at least one gazeta.ru article. Nakonana (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The singer also explicitly publishes songs and footage under cc 4.0 license as per her website [1]: "Музыка, тексты и изображения сайта распространяются по лицензии Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0". Nakonana (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might be but the license still needs to be checked by an administrator or reviewer Trade (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the link is right there. The license text is at the very bottom of the website for anyone to see. Nakonana (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What user page? Trade (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look at use before nominating for deletion? For example, look at File:Meanna-why.flac. I don't feel like doing the rest of the work I respectfully submit that I think you should have done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Wikidata pages they were used on. Dont know why a random user page is such a huge concern Trade (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it is, and I actually questioned above whether that really counts for being COM:INUSE, but I was surprised you were asking me where pages you nominated for deletion are used. I think the more salient issues that should be addressed (and I'm not prejudging how to address them or what decision to make) are the ones brought up by Nakonana. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be weird to exclude entire Wikimedia Projects from the category dont you think? Trade (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't know what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mao Zedong 1959.jpg

1959 Chinese photograph, although PD in China, it would have been restored by URAA. --向史公哲曰 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, has 3 derived versions that would also be affected by this. Undelete in 2055. Abzeronow (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Фото Тадеуша Ковальського, 1926 р..jpg

wrong date, wrong source Xocolatl (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those things can be corrected. Is it public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep date and source fixed. If it is a family taken photo, which it appears to be, we allow heirs to release the image under a CC license. --RAN (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a picture in PD, its author is Tadeusz Jan Kowalski, died 1948. he visited Halych in 1926 (that's what the name of the photo is saying). information is corrected --アンタナナ 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BAPLA 2009 laptop bag.jpg

The image consists of a bag containing several non-free logos. Xeroctic (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the issue further? This is a photo I took of a bag that I own, one that was clearly distributed (by BAPLA) for the companies whose logos appear on the bag. Surely they'd want their logos to be seen. Besides for this logical reasoning, I'd say that this is not a derivative work just because logos are in shot, and their appearance is fair use, because without them, the photo of the bag would be unsuitable for its purpose, which is to show how APL companies used various logos to advertise APL while glaringly missing an actual APL logo. I also don't see how this would be any worse than the many other Wikimedia Commons photos of logos on objects. But if it is, I can attempt to directly contact all the companies involved and ask for their explicit permission. A.Brudz (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Москва, Петровский путевой дворец (левая стена).jpg

The user Yaroslav Alekseev uploaded a wrong file and changed the original photo with a request for this file to be deleted. Thanks in advance. 109.79.30.209 23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Москва, Петровский путевой дворец.jpg

The user Yaroslav Alekseev uploaded a wrong file and changed the original photo with a request for this file to be deleted. Thanks in advance. 109.79.30.209 23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]