Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/25

PROMO photograph of a non-notable businessperson. Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, he appears be be a 'celebrity', based on an article on his wedding in Spanish Vanity Fair magazine.[1] Verbcatcher (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the village pump. We're in the process of deleting images and categories related to 'celeberties' because its a totally meaningless designator of notability and more importantly eductional value. Like with your Vanity Fair link there's an article about Louisa Jacobson (Meryl Streep's youngest daughter) introducing her girlfriend for Pride month. So by your standard any image of Meryl Streep's daughter and her random girlfriend of the moment would somehow abritrarily be eductional and in scope "because celebrity" or some nonsense. That's not the standard though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Delete. 181.203.82.193 01:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Own work" claim is almost certainly inaccurate. This is not a real legal disclaimer, but rather part of the film's "killer movie" motif, so is almost certainly creative enough to be copyrightable. Seraphimblade (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fictional map without sources and advertising content Beyoglou (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadı: Beyoglou (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Masur as Dw no source since (dw no source since).

The involved objects depict portraits of political personalities from 1900s. We must determine if these were also painted during that era, and if so, likely to be in public domain (tag with {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}). But if these were only painted recently, or only published recently, then these are still under the painters' copyright and is unfree to be photographed to be licensed under commercial Creative Commons licensing, considering the Philippines not granting Freedom of Panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Masur as Dw no source since (dw no source since). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:05125jfAtate Offices New Capitol Building Palayan City Nueva Ecijafvf 22.JPG for my reason of denying the speedy deletion tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the uploader of this image, and now I notice it isn't licensed by CC 4.0. It is private and shouldn't exist in Wikimedia Commons. Arc Unin (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by かしわのはみん as Speedy (db-redir). The file creator is Kamigata0 and redirect creator is Frank C. Müller, so the redirect does not qualify for speedy deletion and I create a regular request, which lasts a week. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per license in the image, CC COM:ND Nutshinou ^Talk! 08:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in public domain, the author was alive some years ago. So notdead since more than 70 years ago Zen 38 (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, the uploader appear to claim to be Marie-Claire Lefébure, the painter of the original painting. I see no clear reason to doubt this. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author was still alive some years ago, so not in public domain Zen 38 (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, the uploader appear to claim to be Marie-Claire Lefébure, the painter of the original painting. I see no clear reason to doubt this. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Honfleur - Le port.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No author, no source, clearly wrong date. No proof author died 70 years ago as claimed. Engine was around until the sixties. 192.176.230.1 08:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a simple logo. Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please give more precision? Thank you in advance, Luchoxtrab (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look COM:TOO France: "this has left the bar quite low for many works". Taivo (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so... Luchoxtrab (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again...

[...] but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown.

I'm very sorry but we can't say this intends to be a work of art...Luchoxtrab (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I see here clear intend to be work of art. This intends to be a stylized stepping figure, and not even 2-dimensional, but 3-dimensional. Taivo (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could've been but no, it is definitely not a work of art as it is a (retail) brand logo. In the article COM:TOO France it is mentioned that the general c:TOO in France is higher than in some countries which definitely makes me doubt about the point of deleting this logo. Sorry Luchoxtrab (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Seemingly not meeting the criteria for deletion as the threshold of originality in France is generally set high. Luchoxtrab (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Update below - Luchoxtrab (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Parlons en français, nous avons déjà supprimé plusieurs fois cette image et vous la remettez. Ceci est inadmissible. Je vous demande d'arrêter et laisser ce fichier être supprimer. Alexandar au Arcos (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bonjour, donner des ordres ne sert à rien, la manière la plus acceptable de faire changer quelqu'un d'avis est d'apporter davantage d'explications comme le commentaire ci-dessous. Luchoxtrab (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment These are some COM:TOO France related DRs which all resulted in the files being deemed below TOO in France:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gendarmerie nationale logo.svg (File:Gendarmerie nationale logo.svg)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo M la France.svg (File:Logo M la France.svg)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour de France logo.svg (File:Tour de France logo.svg)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Sens Commun.png (File:Logo Sens Commun.png)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gérard Billaudot Editeur logo.jpg (File:Gérard Billaudot Editeur logo.jpg).

I'm not sure where I place this logo complexity-wise, relative to the ones above. What speaks for that this logo is more complex is that all the logos above are more or less text-logos, with a varying degree of complexity. The complexity in this logo is not any stylized text but rather some kind of figure which I guess could be argued for being a kind of art. Anyway, per COM:PCP I guess this one should be deleted if we can't find better arguments or proof that this file would be deemed below TOO in France.Jonteemil (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your contribution. Indeed, argued that way I now tend to think you and @Taivo are both right, anyways I do not have any issue if this file gets deleted. Have a good day, Luchoxtrab (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Luchoxtrab (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all of these copyvio for Minecraft? I read COM:COSPLAY but seems out of my depth. I saw that Commons:Deletion requests/File:E3 2011 - box-headed Minecraft men (5822675610).jpg resulted in delete. Can anyone help out?

• File:Pyrkon 2022 Minecraft cosplay.jpg
• File:MEFCC 2012 - Minecraft (7249586192).jpg
• File:Demonstration Stopp ACTA Dortmund 14.jpg
• File:Woman with Steve head (8600893157).jpg
• File:Minecraft cosplayers (5778458010).jpg
• File:Otakuthon 2014- Minecraft (14843122997).jpg
• File:WW Chicago 15 Contest - Minecraft (20913955949).jpg
• File:San Diego Comic-Con 2012 - Minecraft (7585162758).jpg

Quick-ease2020 (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission - see metadata - "Foto: Annemiek Mommers copyrighted" Hoyanova (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo used has been payed for. StgBib (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine and no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for for non-architectural artworks. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question when was the mosaic made/completed and (if possible) who was its artist? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apercebi-me que me enganei ao publicar esta imagem, pois esta não corresponde ao que é descrito, trata-se apenas de um banal marco que delimita uma propriedade privada Gabriel Gomes Moreira (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable own work claims, low-quality files w/o metadata, some are evidently from her Instagram [2] [3]

• File:Mahnaz Afshar 11.jpg
• File:Mahnaz Afshar 22.jpg
• File:MahnazAfshar2019.jpg
• File:MahnazAfshar2020.png

HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an VRTS email received for “File:Mahnaz Afshar 11.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2024062510011608. --Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 17:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains a copyrightable map on the background and loads of history/story info on the foreground. {{PD-text}} may not apply to such expression. George Ho (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collage of Polly Pocket toy figures and parts. Goes against COM:TOYS and COM:DW; de minimis not applicable. George Ho (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of higher-resolution image [Cerbere - Jordi Verdugo.jpg] and now replaced with higher-resolution image across all wikis. Redtree21 (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know if these information boards are published with a free license. Note that there is not FOP in Italy for such things.

• File:View Campi Flegrei 08.JPG
• File:View Campi Flegrei 09.JPG

Ruthven (msg) 13:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

misidentifiation, it is Peter Beňo. Peter Beňo has better images, I've uploaded this one just as an emergency one. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unsufficiently disguised GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File description states "The planet image from here." (archive link) These images were not made by the uploader and there is no evidence that they were ever released into the public domain as claimed, so this is a copyright violation. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, its from the Flickr account of the Government of Thailand who was visiting the WEF in Davos, Switzerland. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, the files are from the Flickr account of of the Government of Thailand during its visit at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

• File:ขณะรถติดหล่ม นายกรัฐมนตรี เดินทางเข้าร่วมประชุม Worl - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva (1).jpg
• File:ขณะรถติดหล่ม นายกรัฐมนตรี เดินทางเข้าร่วมประชุม Worl - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva (10).jpg
• File:ขณะรถติดหล่ม นายกรัฐมนตรี เดินทางเข้าร่วมประชุม Worl - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva (12).jpg
• File:มุ่งหน้าสู่ Davos นายกรัฐมนตรี เดินทางเข้าร่วมประชุม - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva (1).jpg
• File:มุ่งหน้าสู่ Davos นายกรัฐมนตรี เดินทางเข้าร่วมประชุม - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva (11).jpg
• File:มุ่งหน้าสู่ Davos นายกรัฐมนตรี เดินทางเข้าร่วมประชุม - Flickr - Abhisit Vejjajiva (14).jpg

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 北極企鵝觀賞團 as no permission (No permission since). The style of the drawing matches other drawings from this uploader, so the 'own work' claim is credible. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, unless there is a good reason to suspect that this is a derivative work of a non-free image, such as an in-copyright photograph. However, it appears to be based on File:Mikel Laboa abeslaria.jpg, to which a free licence has been assigned. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 北極企鵝觀賞團 as no source (No source since). The specified source 'FERJ' is credible, as it presumably refers to the Federação de Futebol do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but relicense with {{PD-textlogo}}. This file is used in w:pt:Uni Souza Futebol Clube which is a football club founded in 1987, so the {{PD-old-70}} tag is probably invalid. However, the design of the emblem is probably simple enough to be allowed under the threshold of originality rule, see COM:TOO Brazil. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Greater coat of arms of the Kingdom of Redonda.svg
• File:Lesser coat of arms of the Kingdom of Redonda.svg

Images the uploader appears to have just made up. Which would be one thing except they also added them to various Wikipedia language articles as if they were "real" with no further explanation (I've since removed it from the English article). I inquired on the uploader's talk page for details a month ago but have not received a reply. At minimum, they should be moved to something like "Proposed Greater coat of arms for the Kingdom of Redonda by SaluteVII" to reflect that they're just fanart rather than anything anyone associated with Redonda has used or commissioned, but given the misleading uploads and usage, I'd be inclined to just delete them as personal images not in line with policy and out of scope of Commons. SnowFire (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

false own work claim, works with unknown author, publication date.

• File:Paul Montel.jpg
• File:Mikio Sato.jpg

0x0a (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Paul Montel {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} --RAN (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by EurekaLott as Fair use (book cover): not obvious copyright violation, but published 1944. Author died 1959 so per 70pma the book is PD in UK at 2030. Due to COM:URAA it is PD in US at 2040. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not upload to Commons, as it is only of temporary interest" Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is originally a Hungarian academic map, but it has been falsified by Romanian nationalists to spread false information in articles. It is inappropriate to alter original academic maps. It is very unprofessional to combine an obviously hand-drawn upper map with another one. The upper map is originally a hydrography map from the 13th century, where the forger hand-painted many colored patches and falsely claimed it is from the 12th century. (It is also a common practice among forgers to provide numerous marked sources, but when we find the original map, it is clear that it is not among those sources.) In the lower map, the forger rewrote the infobox, claiming the pink areas were Romanian territories, even though the original map does not indicate this. It is also evident to a Hungarian reader that the map contains poor Hungarian grammar, indicating that the forger does not know the Hungarian language (but used a Google translator) but wanted to present the map as an academic Hungarian map in bad faith. Here, I present the original maps and explanations: https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ZQ9mvib_xl.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per copyright violation. Editing a copyrighted image using Paint or Photoshop does not qualify as your own image. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OrionNimrod and Norden1990. Gyalu22 (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cropped from https://www.yamato-hd.co.jp/100th-anniversary/transition/pdf/100th-transition-vehicle.pdf eien20 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not user's own work, taken from copyrighted site, not useful information (who puts income on a log scale? Soap (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my single line input:

This is from a copyrighted site, GlobalDataLab. That alone should prohibit this map. But in case I missed something,

It's using a log scale to measure income, which is a very poor choice. All we know is some areas are vaguely poorer or richer than others, but we dont know how much. There isn't even an average value for us to compare with.

It's a JPG and therefore essentially un-editable.

Please delete this map. Soap (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but how do you determine that this map was in any way derived from the GlobalDataLab one that you linked? This is certainly not a screenshot, and it's stated nowhere in the map or map description, and the maps do look different - from the base layer, over the data displayed, over the chosen colors, over the labels, to the chosen scale. What do I miss here that makes you so sure of one being the copy of the other?

I also don't get where you see a "log scale", either - all I see is a scale ranging from 6.6 Dollar per Capita to 10.38 Dollar per Capita. Or something to that effect. Yes, there are several things wrong with the map that as a cartographer I would have done better, but "bad style" is no deletion reason. --Enyavar (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sales tax by county.webp for a similar case. --Enyavar (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soap (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i presume it is a screenshot of an older version of the site. or else we'd have to believe the artist went to all that trouble of making their own map, but used the useless log-scale colors of the original source instead of ordinary measurements, and then didnt even bother to add their own legend. why would anyone do that? all the evidence suggests they copied it directly from the site and then labeled it as "own work" since it's easier than going through all that trouble. again to repeat myself:

evidence suggests this is a copyvio. but if you don't believe, please consider:

a log-scale, as labeled in the source, is not a useful measurement of per capita income. i've figured out that the data is meant literally, with no multiplier ... that is, 7 means e^7, so $1096, 8 means e^8, so $2980, and so on .... but 90% of the people viewing this map aren't going to realize that at first glance and I dare say that the other 10% aren't going to know the powers of e by heart. So for all practical purposes, all we know is that green is good and red is bad, like every other map.

because this map is a JPG, nobody can edit it without introducing corruption.

i think the project is better off with no map than with a map like this, and that fixing this one up would be more trouble than it's worth since the source is almost certainly the GlobalDataLab site. Soap (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also repeat myself: I'm less sure now, but I saw no indication that a log scale is present in either map (even if it is, this are map to show gradients between income differences, which they do pretty well. They just fail to communicate that they use unexplained logarithmic data scales. Also, "bad map" is in itself not a deletion reason, or we'd delete 70% of all user-made maps.).

I also see no reason to presume without proof that this could potentially be a screenshot of some older version directly shot from the website you found: that older version would have had different color choices, different regional border choices and a different way to display the map key. That map would be copyrightable, but the mere country subdivisions and also the data are factual content which is not copyrightable. If no proof:  Keep --Enyavar (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

com:Derivative work of en:File:Vache_qui_rit.png#Licensing. Nutshinou ^Talk! 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim. The source site explicitly credits the image to "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" (notice it is in smaller text, and grey not black; comparison to other articles confirms this is the photo attribution; e.g., [4],[5],etc.)

While thus moot, the uploader is apparently operating under a gross misapprehension: the Smithsonian Institution (SI), even if it were the author, is a trust instrumentality, not a federal government entity. For example, the second sentence of the Wikipedia artice incudes "it operates as a trust instrumentality and is not formally a part of any of the three branches of the federal government." The SI has both civil service and non-federal employees (the SI, for example, clearly says "[t]rust employees are not part of the civil service, nor does trust fund employment lead to Federal status." (underline added)) It is for this reason that the source site includes "© 2024 Smithsonian Magazine" (compare to the lack of such notice on federal sites such as whitehouse.gov, senate.gov, usda.gov, sec.gov, etc.) and has terms of use that clearly describe that "Content on the Websites falls into one of two categories": those marked as CC-0 and those not so marked. This image is not so marked (it would be if it were PD/CC-0). Эlcobbola _talk 22:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - This may be be a screenshot from a film--see this similar frame--thus the Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures credit. Эlcobbola _talk 22:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that this is a real flag. Out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page is still under construction, legitimacy is complicated by HK security law. Jamessumnergoodwin (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work 186.174.62.38 22:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]