Commons:Deletion requests/2024/11/24

According to the US embassy of Romania source, this image is a Lockheed Martin photo. The metadata also says: "Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Photo by Liz Lutz" Can Commons keep this photo? I ask the Community to decide. Thanks. Leoboudv (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that the photo was posted here and at the end of the article there is the Flikr link to the gallery of photos. All are marked as Public Domain. Alin2808 (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leoboudv, why did you nominate it for deletion if you want to keep it? Did I miss something? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He said he wants to know if it is alright to keep the image because the metadata says the copyright is with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. I added further context clarifying the origin of the image. Alin2808 (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So what license is it given at the source? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the rather late reply. The license given is Public Domain. You can check the image gallery through this link (there are 7 photos in the gallery, all in a similar situation). Alin2808 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:  Keep the image then as the nominator. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You should just use the {{withdraw}} template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: I  I withdraw my nomination this nomination as the nominator. Sorry, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader did not type in a {{Flickrreview}} to get the flickrbot to pass this image. Today the image is deleted from the source. Since this image is unused and we have other haddock dishes on Commons, perhaps this image file can be deleted. Leoboudv (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I imported this image from en-Wiki but I have no objection to either deleting or keeping the image. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If its status is unreviewable, even if the Wayback Machine is used, it would have to be deleted, but if it can be kept, it's a perfectly usable image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment The file was uploaded in English Wikipedia in 2020 by a user with 43k edits. I checked a few random uploads by the user on Flickr and one was licensed free and the other was licensed NC. So I think it is likely that the photo was licensed freely. I have sent a message to the user on Flickr. I hope for a reply soon. --MGA73 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph is public domain in the UK, it had re-entered the public domain in 2009. The UK was PMA 70 on January 1, 1996 so this still would have been copyrighted then. Post-2012 upload so we cannot host this until January 1, 2031. Abzeronow (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In leaving a courtesy notice on their talk page, I see they were blocked for serial copyvio almost five years ago. These should have been cleaned up a long time ago and not left to me to find and figure out.

• File:Miss Universe 2008 open.jpg
• File:Miss Teen USA 1984 open.jpg
• File:Miss USA 1974 open.jpg
• File:Miss USA 1983 open.jpg
• File:Miss USA 1985 open.jpg

Claimed to be the uploader's own work, but they sure look like screenshots of broadcasts to me. The last one makes that even more obvious by including the tracking menu of a video playing device.

• File:KPIXTVStudio SanFranciscoCA Sep272018.jpg

Licensed by use of {{PD-because}} with a completely bogus rationale. This could have been transferred to Commons from Wikipedia and therefore is okay, but the uploader's actions cause it to be suspect. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works of Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) are protected by copyright in France until 2044. Günther Frager (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are Mexican copyright laws relevant? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this particular DR, only if there is evidence that the country of origin is Mexico as it is not a FoP case.Günther Frager (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Country of origin of the picture or of the painting? I took it myself at Museo Soumaya, in Mexico City. FoP laws in Mexico are VERY flexible. José Luiz ^disc 03:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale of the DR is about the artwork, not about the picture. Regarding FoP, Soumaya Museum is private, so it doesn't even count as a public place. Günther Frager (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad descriptive name. I uploaded similar file with better descriptive name. Leonprimer (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of COM:FOP Germany, copyrighted designs on a pinball machine. Museums are not counted as a public place in Germany. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Aristorkle as no source (No source since) Krd 06:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The source is Malacañang Palace archives, and it's stated to be public domain, so we need a fuller explanation of what the problem is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Aristorkle as no source (No source since) Krd 06:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a source, but it doesn't make sense. But is it public domain as claimed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek Original file was replaced with a completely different file (same event, different angle). Explains the bad source, but it should be the public domain following current Philippine copyright laws for pre 1972-11-14 works (author lifetime + 50 years). Unsure if it is a work of the government, as the watermark is only to mark images distributed (not published) by the en:Presidential Library and Museum (Philippines). --Aristorkle (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in the public domain in the U.S., where Wikimedia has its servers, too? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I maybe should have fixed it myself, my bad. --Aristorkle (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the {{withdraw}} template if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 23.237.216.49 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 23.237.216.49 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I'm not seeing evidence of permission either. The seal implies the flag was made in 2005 so it's too recent to be PD, and it's above TOO. The city website has a blanket copyright on their site [1]. Seems unlikely that User:PeRshGo was the actual designer of the flag. Intervex (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I made this image based on the cloth version of the flag with the public domain municipal seal coming from the old version of the website without a copyright notice that is now on the new website, placed by a lazy designer. Is there some other way you would like this written up? PeRshGo (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 23.237.216.49 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 23.237.216.49 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 23.237.216.49 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 23.237.216.49 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 23.237.216.49 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

عکس غیر دقیق Aseyedmohsen (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • First observation: Second time in very short period that this endorsement without justification occur, in a very dubious proposition. >> Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kiev (233498509).jpeg
  • Second: This is not a COM:POSTER, as the poster it is inserted in a environment, and occupy a little area of the photo.

  -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 00:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep, on condition that someone digitally edit the image to blur or censor the copyrighted poster. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The copyrightable part of the poster has been blurred. If the new version is acceptable, please delete the original version, which surely must be tantamount to a low-res upload of the poster itself. Sinigh (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find any author and copyright info on the photograph on the poster, so I don't know when the original version may be undeleted. In fact, I don't even know for sure that the photograph hasn't entered the public domain yet. Sinigh (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not belong on Commons, it belongs to the VRT system Gampe (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not belong on Commons, it belongs to the VRT system Gampe (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

invalid license InterComMan (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What changed since last year? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

invalid license InterComMan (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

w quality, advertising material of Philips Gampe (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Юрий Д.К. as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. IMO, this image is usable as a stock-image showing people walking through a snowy wood. An additional advantage is that due to the shooting from behind, there are no personality-rights-problems. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

files possibly be copyvio. because no metadata, small photos, and writings added to them. please contact COM:VRT or upload them properly with proper metadata. note to admins: please take time, dont close this DR soon(if author dont say anything).

• File:Sanghbast1.jpg
• File:Milky way sang bast.jpg
• File:Ayaz North.jpg
• File:22lamp.jpg
• File:Moon keshmar.jpg
• File:Keshmar north.jpg
• File:Radkan001.jpg
• File:Akhangan1.jpg
• File:3fr2.jpg
• File:فردوسی ۱.jpg
• File:خورشید.jpg
• File:Sharaf002.jpg
• File:Sharaf001.jpg
• File:Startrail in khorasan,Ferdowsi Tomb.jpg

modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

این مجموعه از عکسهای رد ستارگان متعلق به من مهدی جلالیان خوشنوددر ویکی پدیا است

سایت من بانام ممتاز تصویر توس و به آدرس

momtaztasvirtoos.ir

I resized the photos in Mac with the program Resize Master .است Mjkhoshnood (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dehghanpourpix

آقای هادی دهقان پور در موردصحت این مجمعه عکس که توسط من مهدی جلالیان خوشنودتهیه شده است می توانند توضیح دهند Mjkhoshnood (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

files are not copy, this photos take by own ; Mahdi Jalalian Khoshnood & and resize with copyright @Mjkhoshnood

• File:Sanghbast1.jpg
• File:Milky way sang bast.jpg
• File:Ayaz North.jpg
• File:22lamp.jpg
• File:Moon keshmar.jpg
• File:Keshmar north.jpg
• File:Radkan001.jpg
• File:Akhangan1.jpg
• File:3fr2.jpg
• File:فردوسی ۱.jpg
• File:خورشید.jpg
• File:Sharaf002.jpg
• File:Sharaf001.jpg
• File:Startrail in khorasan,Ferdowsi Tomb.jpg

Mjkhoshnood (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:NUDE, personal spam/F10

• File:Artistic Female Buttocks Reference 9.jpg
• File:Artistic Female Buttocks Reference 8.jpg
• File:Artistic Female Buttocks Reference 5.jpg
• File:Artistic Female Buttocks Reference 6.jpg
• File:Artistic Female Buttocks Reference 4.jpg
• File:Artistic Female Buttocks Reference 3.jpg
• File:Artistic Female Buttocks Reference 2.jpg
• File:Artistic Female Buttocks Reference 1.jpg
• File:The Beauty of Femininity.jpg
• File:Feminine Allure.jpg
• File:Womens Fashion.jpg
• File:Female Body 1.jpg
• File:Female Anatomy 3.jpg
• File:Womens fashion 2.jpg
• File:Female Body (back).jpg
• File:Female Anatomy (reproductive).jpg
• File:Female Anatomy 2.jpg
• File:Female Body 2.jpg
• File:Artistic Photography of a Woman.jpg
• File:Artistic Photography of Femininity.jpg
• File:Artistic Femininity GIF.gif
• File:Human Female Buttocks.jpg

Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that images of human anatomy, such as labia, buttocks, and breasts, often carry cultural and social taboos, it is essential to recognize that these images can serve educational, referential, and artistic purposes. In medical, biological, and educational contexts, visual representations of human anatomy are invaluable for study, research, and the promotion of understanding about the body. Furthermore, these images can be used to convey important information regarding health, anatomy, and human diversity. Artistically, depictions of the human form—whether in classical art or contemporary expressions—serve to explore themes of identity, beauty, and vulnerability. Unfortunately, despite their significance, images of these body parts are often underrepresented on platforms like Wikimedia Commons, where content is intended to be a comprehensive and accurate reflection of human knowledge. This lack of imagery limits access to valuable resources for education, research, and artistic exploration, depriving users of a complete and nuanced understanding of human anatomy in a respectful, informed, and thoughtful context. NCroatie (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ai written reply is a big no for me. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So with my own words (sorry for the grammar, English is not my mother tongue): Female parts especially breasts, buttocks, and labia have been used against women throughout history to shame and control them, despite these parts being natural and beautiful. Artistic photography of them has the power to normalise them and to end the unecessary taboo around them. You'd have 100 pictures of the same mountain of Wikimedia commons, but almost inexistant Female parts pictures (at least good quality ones), and I believe mine are as I take great care in taking them the most difficult part being having the right lighting. Modern times give us cameras that would have been before painting and sculpting. I hope that this answers any questions. Thanks. NCroatie (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add, you said it all... Keep R. A. Sterling (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Need your insight here please NCroatie (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My feeling is that we don't need so many similar photos of a woman's ass, for example, but my inclination would be to oppose deletion of all of these files en masse and instead want to focus on specific groups of similar views and determine whether some of them should be kept. I'll say  Keep for now, but if you renominate the buttocks pics as a group, I'll be happy to give my opinion about which 1-2 we should keep. Etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All I see is a whole lot of images of asses and pudendas (pudendae?) which we both have a lot of. Unless an image is of truly exceptional quality I will pretty much always vote to delete it if it’s just a butt, a penis, a vulva, boobs, nudity etc. since we have plenty of those and they’re more likely to just be used as vandalism even if good quality and uploaded in good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Dronebogus, may I ask how my images can be used for vandalism? There is nothing shocking about them, they are just natural. Also, I don't see plenty images of asses and pudendae, it seems to me that it's pretty empty, outdated, and of miserable quality. I take all of my pictures with great care so it's quite disappointing to see them as marked for deletion. I'll admit there is a set of similar ones called Artistic Female Buttocks Reference followed by a number, I didn't think it would be an issue as I saw someone uploading dozens of similar pictures of the same mountain. I wouldn't mind the series to be deleted for repetition and number 7 to be kept though, this is the higuest quality one of the set. NCroatie (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dumb people like putting pictures of butts or penises in inappropriate contexts Dronebogus (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dronebogus: Another bunch of nominated files at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artistic Representation of a Woman 3.jpg--A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @A1CafelThese two deletion requests of several pictures are being dismissed by the large majority of voters. I hope that next time you will think twice before submitting files for deletion. And I of course want my images to be used in appropriate contexts and on the appropriate pages. My goal is to contribute and to enrich, and the nudity sections on wikimedia commons desperately need an update with high quality content (litterally, pixel wise) and a photograph would be able to appreciate the quality of my pictures. Waiting for the right light, shooting hundreds of shots and selecting only a few good ones, less than a dozen! This took several hours. So it is very disappointing for me to see such requests on my pictures. I hope you understand that now. NCroatie (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• i didnt exactly check up files, just put my eyes on these with little effort. but i say  Keep. because some of these are good. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 10:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I do not see these images as spam, only as quality images of the female body - we have loads of images of naked women with downright lousy quality - and therefore they should be kept. -- LevandeMänniska (talk), 12:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete all. I'm unconvinced that these files is targeted for educational use, and they are not at good quality too. I think we had enough photos of women buttocks and vulva, so it won't be a big loss to delete them. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @A1Cafel These file are targeted or educational, referential, and artistic use. I must disagree with your statements, and strongly: these files are of very high quality, please check their resolution. Also, these pictures have been taken with professional cameras for all of them, most of them also in professional settings for many of those inside in a studio with professional equipment. The ones outside were taken on sunny days, wuen the sun was at the zenith to have the best possible lighting. And lastly, there are not enough good photos of buttocks and vulva, the ones there are are of horrible quality and very old. NCroatie (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with Iwaqarhashmi. Adding a long AI-generated text (according to Zerogpt, the text is very likely to be AI/GPT Generated) did not convince me that these files are educationally useful. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Delete all, didn't convince me either. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iwaqarhashmi Here is why these files should be kept on wikimedia commons: these files are of very high quality pixel wise and DPI wise. They also have amazing lighting and the pictures were taken in professional settings with professional equipment while maintaining a normal/natural aspect. They have several educational values being artistic reference (for drawing, painting, photography, etc), anatomy reference, health reference. They can also be used on wikipedia pages or similar platforms, or for publications, articles, etc. And the most important point: these pictures convey the message that nudity is normal, just a state, and a part of the body that should be considered as normal as a nose for example and that have been made unjustly taboo and shamed by outdated cultural norms. It cannot be argued rationally or scientifically that nudity is not normal and by repeateadly viewing such images, of normal nudity settings, nudity comes accross as normal, as a state of being. Shaming and hiding such pictures only lead to a sick and unhealthy society where nudity can be used against people through manipulation or blackmailing and this wouldn't be the case if nudity was seen as normal by everyone. And this is written by me. NCroatie (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on the basis of pixel count and lighting. I took a look, for science, and they appear to be... erm... educational and well-composed. 12000x16000 pixels! JayCubby (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep We have only few such hq pictures in the human body categories. --Veliensis (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

間違えて投稿した 153.180.232.213 10:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a pdf file instead of a djvu file. Aveldro (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't we have both? Not every graphic program will open a djvu. --RAN (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Deletion requested by the uploader shortly after upload but file is COM:INUSE at fr.wikisource. --Rosenzweig τ 07:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted image. Vengeance • Talk 11:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fictitious flags without references. might have been created by the user or taken somewhere from the internet. lack of com:ev.

• File:Baker Howland Jarvis Island Flag.gif
• File:Kingman Reef (U.S. Minor Outlying Islands).gif

RoyZuo (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

文書内に津田せつ子によって1980年に書かれた文章があるため(参考:https://libro-koseisha.co.jp/leprosy/hansenbyou-4/) Biáng (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

当該ファイルをアップロードしたHinokisOfRomaです。一言、苦言を申し上げます。津田せつ子の文章の末尾が残っていることを確かですが、この部分をモザイク処理すれば他の文章はすべてPDです。あなたは、なぜファイルを残す方向で努力しないのでしょう。当該ファイルをモザイク処理して再アップロードしたあとで、旧ファイルの削除依頼と言う手続きをするくらいの努力はご自分でなされてはいかがでしょうか。それがコモンズの理念に合致する、正しい編集態度だと思いますが。--HinokisOfRoma (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

依頼者です。先ず言葉足らずな削除依頼で不快感を与えたことをお詫び申し上げます。私ももしこのファイルの問題が解決されたならば版指定削除に変更したいのですが、私の使用しているデバイスがiPhoneである以上、ライセンスや著作権のある部分をきちんと検閲できるかの心配がございます。あくまでも個人的な言い訳にしかなりませんが、このような事情があるため、どうしても他力本願になってしまうことをご理解頂けたらと思います。大変申し訳ございません。 Biáng (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no author given no metadata no permission. Cannot be a selfie as is claimed. Hoyanova (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no author given no permission no metadata, cannot be a selfie as is claimed Hoyanova (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no author given no permission no metadata, cannot be a selfie as is claimed Hoyanova (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no author given no permission no metadata, cannot be a selfie as is claimed Hoyanova (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This drawing seems to be a derivated work of a picture ([2]). Cody escouade delta (d) 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivated of a picture that I used as a model yes but still, a picture that remains in the public domain. Ece powell (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artist deceased in 2000; free license of his paitings not yet possible - esp. not yet a CC license Msb (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works of Jerzy Kapłański (d. 2023) in interior of church. 87.205.173.60 18:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ملف خاطئ Adjuster3 (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Deletion requested by the uploader shortly after upload but file is COM:INUSE at ar:الجمهورية_الطرابلسية. --Rosenzweig τ 07:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Такого человека не существует Sabbath show (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure does this person exists or not, but it is out of scope - unused personal image. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 10:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inexistent or without source Kreuzecharmeur (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in public domain. Copyright infringement Nous (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember well, this was claimed as PD-Art because it is essentially a flat surface, hence the lack of creativity in the photography. Seems quite similar to this rule from Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag: "Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book: OK. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution." If this is stretching it too much, please delete. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep. This is borderline, but I'd be inclined to consider this a faithful reproduction within the limits of the work. The plate is certainly a three-dimensional object, but the photograph is taken from a straight-on angle and lit to optimize the visibility of the painting, rather than the structure of the plate. There's essentially no creative element in the photograph. Omphalographer (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's as close to a flat reproduction as possible, but some three-dimensionality seems visible. I'll be interested to see how the closing admin rules. I think a strict reading of the rules for the PD-Art tag would exclude this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

تصویر شخصی بارگزاری شده M4tinbeigi (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mislabeled. This is John Savage (1673-1747). See https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw90929/John-Savage?LinkID=mp72796&role=sit&rNo=2 Howardcorn33 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Or we change the name and not delete the image. --RAN (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Exactly. This is a historical print. Why would it be useful to delete this image? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio: Stolen from website https://adel.de/adel-nach-laendern/skandinavischer-adel/ and out of scope, too (fantasy, no historic background) GerritR (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that some of my uploads are problematic, so I am requesting deletions to files that are not my own work. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that some of my uploads are problematic, so I am requesting deletions to files that are not my own work. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that some of my uploads are problematic, so I am requesting deletions to files that are not my own work. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a low quality duplicate file. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that some of my uploads are problematic, so I am requesting deletions to files that are not my own work. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that some of my uploads are problematic, so I am requesting deletions to files that are not my own work. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that some of my uploads are problematic, so I am requesting deletions to files that are not my own work. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that some of my uploads are problematic, so I am requesting deletions to files that are not my own work. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that some of my uploads are problematic, so I am requesting deletions to files that are not my own work. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that some of my uploads are problematic, so I am requesting deletions to files that are not my own work. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake flag that never existed. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image should be removed because it depicts the coat of arms of the Breton family Du Bahuno, not the Italian family Basciano, as verified by reliable heraldic sources. CaveCanem290 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a good deletion reason? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ikan Kekek,

Well it's either a good reason for surpression, or at the very least for changing the name of the file from "Blason de la Famille Basciano" to "Blason de la Famille "du Bahuno".

Regards, CaveCanem290 (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaveCanem290: We need to be sure that Basciano family's arms are different; what are the reliable heraldic sources for these ?

Regards, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kontributor 2K the reliable source i was quoting is about the Bahuno coat of arms. It's the "Pol Potier de Courcy, Nantes, J. Plihon & L. Hervé, 1890, 3e éd. (BNF 3525163)".

As stated below, the wikipedia article in which the Basciano arms was integrated has been flagged as a fake, and thus supressed. You can find the discussions here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Famille_Basciano/Admissibilit%C3%A9

Therefore, I stand by my opinion that we should delete this file as well as this article https://plus.wikimonde.com/wiki/Famille_Basciano.

Best regards, CaveCanem290 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bahuno family's arms are "De sable, au loup d'argent, langué et onglé de gueules, passant et surmonté d'un croissant d'argent" - sable a wolf passant argent, armed and langued gules and a crescent argent in chief (or neither armed nor langued gules). Here the wolf is not armed gules, like on Blason des Basciano.jpg which shows Bascianos' arms. By the way, what are exactly the reliable heraldic sources for these ? --Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Kontributor 2K,

  The raliable sources i was quoting about the Bahuno family arms was the "Pol Potier de Courcy, Nantes, J. Plihon & L. Hervé, 1890, 3e éd. (BNF 3525163).

  Also, the Basciano family (and thus the Basciano coat of arms) article was a fake that was supressed following the discussion of serious members. You can find the discussion here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Famille_Basciano/Admissibilité

  Regards, CaveCanem290 (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaveCanem29: ok, so the file File:Basciano.jpg should be nominated for deletion instead…

I'll handle the correction of file names once the current deletion request is closed. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kontributor 2K Hi ! Shouldn't the deletion request be closed since it has been around for more than 12 days now ? CaveCanem290 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can take some time --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. Don't hesitate to correct the file name once the dicussion will be closed. As you suggested, i have nominated the file Basciano.jpg for deletion instead. Have a good day CaveCanem290 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaveCanem290: Je n'ai rien suggéré du tout, je vous ai dit que je m'en occupais. Vous avez proposé un autre fichier à la suppression, le Basciano.jpg, précisément, ayant déjà été supprimé --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep (per discussion) --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, not created by uploader Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, not created by uploader Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, not created by uploader Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eligible to be a PD-Textlogo, but clearly not created by uploader and no sources mentioned so... Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. Photo by Thomas Steimer, see exif data. No indication that uploader = photographer / copyright holder. 2003:C0:8F2B:4200:50CB:D673:4EA2:8E8E 22:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyvio: This - dated from 2014 (file name) - may be a professional promo photo, or a newspaper clipping, or both, but one thing it is certainly not: "own work" from 2024. 2003:C0:8F2B:4200:50CB:D673:4EA2:8E8E 22:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this photo was taken by a friend whom I asked to do some portray shots of me. It is my property and absolutely no copyright is infringed here. There is no commercial use attached to them. Swordandsandal (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]