Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/21

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. This is a WPA mural, so it should be in the public domain as a work of the US Federal government. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this government report, it stated this logo was first illustrated by Syed Abu Bakar Syed Salim in the early year of 1980s. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Dude, heh-heh-heh… This sucks.” (Beavis and Butthead impression) Arguably this is patronizing content authors, but I doubt this media is suitable for any serious educational use. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 07:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong keep Are you being serious here? It features lots of microscopic videos of interesting subjects. For example it's the only microscopic imagery of toilet paper. Moreover, it's notable because of the popular attention and useful also for illustrating the JET Crew, e.g. if there ever is an article on them. You really should look into videos on WMC, most of them are not nearly as useful as this one, not all content has to be boring and uneducational. This one is about putting things under the microscope and clearly is educational and more useful than ~95% of videos on WMC, I have concerns that you don't understand COM:SCOPE and have not seen many videos on here...please browse some. Moreover, those comedic type of content is also useful for that purpose and such reactions don't make a video less useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless ways this file is useful so I didn't list all of them...for example also 'Microscopy in popular culture' etc. Nowhere is it implied WMC would only host serious content, what is "serious" about these files for just one example? Please first get familiar with WMC such as viewing a few newly uploaded videos before nominating content. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective:

1. Notability, interestingness, or popularity are irrelevant for Commons. Please leave these concerns to Wikipedia discussions where they can matter.
2. Special: Search/microscope~ "toilet paper"~ yields File: Туалетная бумага.jpg.
3. The constant shaking renders the microscopic imagery worthless for sincere depictions of the objects under magnification. The main subject of the video is rather two dudes toying around with their new gear.
4. Actually I criticized the referenced category, but the current deletion policy does not merit precedent. The argument “we must keep A, because B was kept” or “we must delete B, because C was deleted” is not recognized. Every file is assessed individually (and that’s also why said category is filled to the brim with female nudes).
5. Sorry for the inadvertent double entendre, the content does not need to be serious, but it must be realistically useful to teach/instruct/educate. Frankly, if my physics teachers in school had been fooling around like this, I would not have learned anything. That is my point. Apparently you’re a different kind of learner, though.

‑‑ Kays (T | C) 08:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did not mention notability or interestingness as a reason to keep what I said/meant is that this is educational in terms of informing about popular culture and e.g. types of popculture media content.
2. You really mean to argue that because there is one image that looks entirely different that this one comprehensive video would not be useful?
3. And? WMC can have videos of guys toying around. What is the main subject to you may not be the actual main subject and is not the actual subject to me. The microscopic videos are the main content and the reactions to that are also useful and context.
4. As said over ~80% of videos on WMC are far less useful and less educational than this video. So I suggest that instead on insisting you know things here well despite being a very new user very unfamiliar with the site you first look around such as first editing for a while.
5. Achieved with the microscopic videos contained there. You would learn how things look at the microscopic scale that can't be seen with bare eyes.

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. The educational value of this video - which, to be clear, is two guys joking around with a USB microscope, not a serious attempt to demonstrate microscopy - is negligible, and I don't see any substantial likelihood that it could be useful in educational content on Wikimedia sites. Mirroring comedy shows is not a good use of Wikimedia resources. Omphalographer (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. To document the notable people, in fact one of the people in the video has a Wikipedia article
2. Microscopy in popular culture
3. What reaction videos are
4. No explanation given, you just don't like it and want to COM:CENSOR it due to that while ignoring my points
5. COM:INUSE anyway
6. The video features various household objects under the microscope of which we have no other media, it's one of the most educational valuable contents due to that...for example the one and only media showing how toilet paper looks like under toilet paper

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also lots of other things like various particular parts of human skin etc of which there is no media. That you want to delete this educationally valuable media just reveals your censorship attitude. This is one of the most valuable educational files on here, more educational and more useful thanat least ~80% of videos on here, and there is no policy for that content has to be boring. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info You should disclose that you created these uses in response to this deletion request. At the point in time of the deletion nomination the file was not in use. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 08:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create them "in response", I missed adding them earlier since I didn't know there was a Wikipedia article about one of the two people and didn't look into this video much until now. I'm very much allowed to add them after the DR was opened. Nominating files for deletion that are as useful as this is the problem, not that the file that is clearly useful is put into use. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: It’s a matter of courtesy. Without it you create the impression I filed this DR in spite of (then‑)present uses. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 04:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old photos, dates of death from 1970 to 2011. Not 2021 own work

• File:Lauro-Travassos.jpg
• File:Paschoal-Senise.jpg
• File:Edison farah.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep PD-Brazil-Photo, Brazil did not award copyright for ordinary photos. --RAN (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

incompatible license non free image see metadata "Author Rick Smulders Copyright holder R. Smulders www.ricksmulders.nl Online copyright statement www.ricksmulders.nl" Hoyanova (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from Báo Quân đội nhân dân, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for painting in Bangladesh Wasiul Bahar (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for painting in Bangladesh Wasiul Bahar (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:Derivative work: photograph-of-photograph, original source and author unknown. MKFI (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploading user is not the copyright owner. Maybe this qualifies as simple logo though? Bjarki S (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I changed the license to PD-textlogo and removed the deletion request. If someone disagrees that it meets the threshold for PD-textlogo, they can revive this request. --Bjarki S (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete It looks too complex to me, especially as COM:TOO Iceland is a red link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is an AI upscaled version of File:Gaza police exercise in 2011 (05).jpg. I believe this file is redundant as it doesn't adhere to the Manual of Style regarding AI-assisted upscaling of images, i.e. MOS:HOTLINK. Additionally, I believe the file currently used for the English article on Yahya Sinwar (File:Yahya_Sinwar_portrait_3x4.jpg) is preferable in accordance with MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Quidama (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete or overwrite with an un-upscaled version if this crop is useful. Per COM:Redundant The low quality source of this upscale makes it look like a watercolor. . Narnat (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I have uploaded the No-AI version of the image, and the 3:5 aspect ratio of this bust shot is quite good. Perhaps other languages Wikipedia might want to use it, keeping it will be useful. Nagae Iku (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot including copyrighted Apple emoji (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sitelen Emoji Rendered on Apple.jpg) where they are broadly the focus of the screenshot and editing them out would alter the meaning. Belbury (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: There are 2 small emoji's in the image. I can't see how they are copyrighted since every other media company uses practically the same emoji's. Apple didn't invent the emoji's. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different companies use different, original artwork for emojis, and not all choose to release them under free licences. Some companies like Android and Firefox have subcategories at Category:Emoji by theme, but Apple is conspicuously absent there.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sitelen Emoji Rendered on Apple.jpg is a DR with a quote from their usage guidelines. Belbury (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture merely shows the side view of a referee at an amateur football match without a recognisable match situation and without documentary value. It does not contribute to the illustration of a Wikipedia article and offers no added value for articles about football or the clubs involved (Union Geretsberg, Union Ostermiething). Despite its good technical quality, the image does not fulfil the requirements for content quality. Commons is not a private photo album, but serves to provide images with documentary value, which is not the case here. Reb-el-mar (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Redirect YeBoy371 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Redirect YeBoy371 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not own work: credit in EXIF data not matching the uploader. And not notable, out of scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical photos, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. And File:Allama Muhammad Din Sialvi.jpg is taken from FB as per EXIT data.

• File:Allama Muhammad Din Sialvi.jpg
• File:Khwaja Qamar Ul Din Sialvi frame.jpg
• File:Khwaja Qamar Ul Din Sialvi Sial Sharif.jpg
• File:Khwaja Qamar Ul Din Sialvi and Family 1947.jpg
• File:Khwaja Qamar Ul Din Sialvi.jpg

P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of nondescript logo/pattern, no context, no educational use, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The context is in the file name (albeit with a typo): Category:Kunsthalle Messmer. Might be a architectural element or part of the exhibition in that art gallery. If it's a work of art, it might fall under the threshold of originality maybe? The gallery is located in Germany. Nakonana (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of non-notable event/people, no context/location, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: photo of Category:Ronan Le Goff attending event at which other notables were present SecretName101 (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: Thanks for your reply, but how do you know it is actually Ronan Le Goff? --P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hair and clothes are the same as another photo of him on the same day (File:Ronan Le Goff (4274169927) (1).jpg) SecretName101 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it is COM:REDUNDANT. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redundancy tends to be images so similar to eachother that there is no conceivable difference in use of both SecretName101 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom Open Government Licence v3.0 does not cover the Royal Arms. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom Open Government Licence v3.0 does not cover the Royal Arms. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and needless tiny crop from File:HF-Dichtung 660x660.jpg. P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:26, 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]

No evidence that this photo has been released under CC BY-SA 4.0 as claimed by the uploader (the given source page doesn't say so, it also didn't around the time of the upload). Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating these files for deletion (including one of my own) because osu!'s licensing is complicated. osu!lazer is under an MIT license [1] but the skin, etc. could be not permissible as it is a CC BY-NC license. [2] This deletion request should help sort out the components which are permissible and the components that are not.

• File:Gameplay - default skin.jpg
• File:Hit circle.png
• File:OSU lazer song selection.jpg
• File:Osu!catch on osu!lazer.png
• File:Osu!Lazer Screenshot with Argon Skin.png
• File:Osu!lazer screenshot.png
• File:Slider2.jpg

Aasim (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader of File:OSU lazer song selection.jpg. This file was previously nominated for deletion here, and was kept under Commons:De minimis. I have no strong feelings regarding this file, it was uploaded years ago before I really understood copyright, and it is no longer used on enwiki. I simply wanted to bring the previous deletion discussion into the scope of the conversation. Thanks, Scaledish (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were osu! images on wikimedia commons already, I thought I could upload one screenshot and I didn't think that this would happen. However, since this happened now, I am not against deleting those screenshots, including my screenshot (in fact, please delete my screenshot) TheRealUser3412 (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Slider2.jpg and File:Hit circle.png that might be COM:TOO in the US at least. Not sure about Australia where osu! originates. Aasim (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1995. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Battle of Lahore.jpg
• File:Sultan Mohammed Khan Mengal.jpg

GamerHashaam (talk) has uploaded multiple files that have been subsequently deleted for copyright violations – see upload log here. User has often tagged these files as own work when they patently are not. Per COM:PAKISTAN and COM:US the original photographs from 1965 are possibly in the public domain. However, no precise publication information is available via reverse image search, which only points to Facebook, etc. --Peloneous (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian logo, no information at COM:Ukraine about ToO. Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Нормальний логотип, взятий з відкритих джерел, ліцензія та ж, що і на сайті джерела. Тим більше, це закритий телеканал, ніхто судитися з Вікіпедією не буде. Залиште лого. Iamthebest3000 (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Фендом не є власником авторських прав, а телевізійна станція. Крім того, «вони не подадуть до суду» суперечить духу Wikimedia Commons. Що мені потрібно знати, якщо поріг оригінальності в Україні.

[Fendom ne ye vlasnykom avtorsʹkykh prav, a televiziyna stantsiya. Krim toho, «vony ne podadutʹ do sudu» superechytʹ dukhu Wikimedia Commons. Shcho meni potribno znaty, yakshcho porih oryhinalʹnosti v Ukrayini.] (via Google translate) @NickK: Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1953 Belgian photograph, possibly PD there if published in 1953, but would have been restored by URAA. Likely needs VRT from organization. Abzeronow (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=dqo2DRVu3ow has a CC license. However, during the recorded interview some (unsourced) still photographs are displayed that IMO are not covered by the CC license as they most likely are not shot by Chance TV. This photo can be seen on Kate's Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/kate.xeeva/p/CmuIU0wKWd3/ Achim55 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be above COM:TOO UK. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The word "Lucid" in a bog-standard font and two slashes in a blue box. I don't think this is something even the UK would copyright. Unlike the Edge example cited in the TOO guideline, the font here has seemingly not been altered in any meaningful way. IceWelder [✉] 06:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The font may still be copyrighted in the UK. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, it is just a bold Helvetica, not a proprietary font that would fall under UK copyright law. IceWelder [✉] 06:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two slashes in a box may be enough original effort to merit copyright in COM:TOO UK.  Delete per COM:PCP? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]