Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/10

Please delete this low res video; a high res 4k 3,840 × 2,160 pixels has now been uploaded here: File:Eglwys Llangwyfan, Ynys Cribinau, Ynys Môn, Anglesey, Cymru (Wales) 2.webm. Cheers! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. I've uploaded a better quality (3,840 × 2,160 pixels) video here. Cheers! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logos/Emblems aren't covered under {{GODL-India}}; not below threshold of originality. CptViraj (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how it does not comes under that license. Its not a private/indipendent/autonomous franchis but rather the logo of the navigation system launched and operated under ISRO, whose all images/logos are valid under this license. Awaiting reply. Editor8220 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Exceptions section by clicking on the Information on Related Items on the license template. -- CptViraj (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Understood. You can switch to speedy deletion for all three files. Editor8220 (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diese Karte wurde durch eine bessere Karte https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gew%C3%A4sser_Schweinfurt-Sennfeld.png (beide von mir erstellt) ersetzt und wird nicht mehr benötigt Foxy5 (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this file this word already recorded by me using LL Sriveenkat (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an own work, is it? 186.172.222.6 10:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury: I convert to deletion request instead of copyvios .

Need third party independent to reason if my reasoning is correct.
Here is my reasoning of why it should not be exceeding treshold of originality:
(i) The glitch effects is as common now as practical effects you can search in youtube and recreate the effects in just few mins as demonstrated

(ii) Also the glitch effects are not breaking any copyrights individually as it is already in Commons as shown:

(iii) Also I found out that there are logos uploaded to Commons also have this type of glitch distortion such as

(iv) Also , there are logos with lighting that looks even more complicated than my uploaded file.
Category:Winamp logos
Category:Gatorade logos
Category:AC/DC logos

Even the Flash (from DC comics) lighting logo able to stay in Commons for quite sometimes now.
Category:The Flash logos

MrAlanKoh (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superseeded by Venray vlag.svg: I corrected the flag itself Alexphangia Talk 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the original image Alexphangia

This image can be deleted. Lambo1404 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:IDENT states Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. ... Defamation is both a legal and moral issue; therefore, Commons does not base decisions on whether the subject is able or likely to sue.. This image is clearly demeaning to the subject. It has been used to illustrate an article in English Wikipedia's Signpost. It is not used in a Wikipedia article and it is unlikely ever to be used anywhere else.

The SIgnpost usage is just two sentences long and is reporting on vandalism to the subject's article. The source for this (not the Signpost) states that a student once photoshopped the subject's head on to the body of a seagull when the subject was their teacher.

This is a schoolboy's prank recreated by an adult who should know better. Being in-use should not be a way around COM:IDENT. If they want it on The SIgnpost, they can upload it to English Wikipedia. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including link to previous Undeletion request: [1]. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request cites COM:IDENT, emphasizing that images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. However, the context and intent of the image should be considered. This image is a form of satire or political humor, similar to political caricatures which are widely accepted and prevalent on Wikimedia Commons. The depiction of Jonathan Gullis as a seagull is a play on words and a common form of meme culture, not inherently demeaning. Satirical images are a recognized and protected form of expression, particularly in political discourse.

Wikimedia Commons hosts numerous political caricatures that exaggerate and parody political figures, see e.g. Category:Caricatures of politicians. The existence of these images sets a precedent (regardless of OTHERSTUFF) for allowing humorous or satirical depictions of politicians. The image in question falls under this category and should be afforded the same consideration. Caricatures and memes serve as a form of commentary and are valuable for their cultural and political significance.

The image is currently in use in The Signpost on English Wikipedia. According to COM:INUSE, an image in use on a Wikimedia project is considered within scope. The policy explicitly states that Commons does not overrule other projects regarding what is in scope. The usage of the image in The Signpost, a recognized and legitimate publication on Wikipedia, satisfies this criterion. The fact that it is used in a Wikipedia namespace does not disqualify it per the policy, as the policy does not make such a distinction.

The Signpost article where the image is used reports on an incident related to the subject, adding educational value by documenting the cultural phenomenon surrounding the meme. The image contributes to the completeness of this report, making it relevant and significant.

Additionally, the image captures an actual phenomenon outside the wiki (as linked by the user above), serving as a snapshot of real meme history. If an image taken of an event simply causes embarrassment, but newspapers write about the event, should we not have photos of said event? This reinforces the image's value as a historical and cultural artifact, documenting contemporary digital culture.

The claim that the image is defamatory is subjective. For an image to be defamatory, it must be proven that it unfairly damages the subject's reputation. Given that political satire is a protected form of speech and the image in question is a lighthearted meme, it is not reasonable to categorize it as defamatory. Moreover, political figures are often subject to scrutiny and satire, which is a normal part of public life.

If The Signpost wishes to retain the image, moving it to English Wikipedia instead of Commons could be an unnecessary complication. Commons serves as a central repository for media files used across Wikimedia projects, and having the image on Commons ensures it remains accessible and usable where needed.

TL;DR  Keep The image depicting Jonathan Gullis as a seagull is a satirical representation akin to political caricatures, widely accepted on Wikimedia Commons. It meets the criteria outlined in COM:SCOPE, being actively used in a legitimate Wikipedia publication. Removing the image would set a concerning precedent against the hosting of satirical and humorous content, which plays a vital role in political and cultural discourse. Therefore, the image should be retained on Wikimedia Commons. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

----Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a This isn't a caricature of a politician. If it was, I wouldn't be asking for it to be deleted. If Adam Cuerden wants to draw a caricature of the subject and upload it to Commons, that's fine with me.

COM:IDENT is clear that Commons does not consider a legal standard of defamation or likelihood that a subject will sue. It's in the part I quoted, so I'm not sure why you are invoking legal and protected speech arguments here. Is the image derogatory? Yes. It is explicitly intended to ridicule the subject. Is the image the image "a historical and cultural artifact"? No. A similar image (not this one) got mentioned in one article.

You appear to be grasping straws here. The question is simple - does this image align with what COM:IDENT says or not? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image should still be considered a form of political satire, even if it is not a traditional caricature. Political satire includes a broad range of expressions beyond traditional drawings, such as memes, which are a significant part of contemporary digital culture. The depiction of Jonathan Gullis as a seagull fits within this context and serves as a humorous commentary rather than a purely derogatory image. IDENT emphasizes that images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. The image in question uses wordplay and meme culture, which are common and widely accepted forms of political and social commentary. It is important to consider the broader context and intent of the image, which is to engage in political humor rather than to demean. The invocation of legal standards, the point was to highlight that political satire is a protected form of expression, reflecting its societal value, and therefore isn't necessary defamatory. The image should be evaluated within this context, rather than being dismissed solely based on subjective interpretations of it being derogatory - which it is not in my opinion. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to this DR to en:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-04-25/In the media. I'm not going to take a position on if it violates COM:IDENT or not. Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's far easier to understand the reporting on the incident with the image, and, frankly, this fuss over it feels more likely to cause a Streissand effect situation than just, y'know, moving on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden Here's the complete text of the Signpost item:

Jonathan Livingston... Seagullis?: Indy100 reports on the vandalism Jonathan Gullis's Wikipedia page has been subject to since his promotion to deputy chairman of the British Conservative Party. Acts of vandalism include changing his last name to Seagullis as a reference to a Reddit meme.

How does the image make that any easier to understand? This is a bit of tangential and ephemeral fluff which is as self-explanatory as it is historically unimportant. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the The Signpost editors (or the larger English Wikipedia community) to decide, not for Commons to dictate over. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a True, but if Adam Cuerden can post claims about the usefulness of the image here, I can question the veracity of those claims. Notice that his statement does not address the reason for the requested deletion, namely violation of COM:IDENT. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a mere pun rises to the level of defamation and demeaning; repeatedly nominating something for deletion is just drawing a lot more attention to it and risking a en:Streisand effect that no-one - including me - wants. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep COM:INUSE and just generally frivolous. I would not be offended if someone photoshopped my head onto a seagull to poke fun at my name. Dronebogus (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Way out of our scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep COM:INUSE. Furthermore, this isn't already Defamation and per Dronebogus.

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]