Commons:Deletion requests/2025/03/02

Out of scope: this PDF appears to be primary, if not entirely, a collection of external links. Omphalographer (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file is cover of open educational resources works created by one of Creative Common's training participants. His OER is an interactive websites that can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. RaymondSutanto (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the content can't be uploaded to Commons, then that is what it is. But uploading a PDF file to Commons whose only purpose is to link to that content still isn't useful. If you want to link to the offsite content from a wiki, use a hyperlink, not a PDF containing that link. Omphalographer (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. This is a work on engineering, not architecture. No evidence that bridges are protected works of architecture under Azerbaijani law. No statute or case law to that effect mentioned either in this DR or at COM:FOP Azerbaijan. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful own work claims - small size, no EXIF, and the uploader's history.

• File:Pierre Henri Wicomb.jpg
• File:South African Music Encyclopedia.jpg
• File:Isitolotolo.jpg

0x0a (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I assisted other wikipedia editors to upload their material. Is there another procedure to follow in such cases? I have explicit permission from the owners. Viljowf (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They look like they were downloaded from the website though. Please {{Ping}} the concerned editors to join the discussion. 0x0a (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete File:Pierre Henri Wicomb.jpg copyvio from https://rmnmusic.com/pierre-henri-wicomb/ © 2015-2021 RMN MUSIC a tradename of RMAGINE Ltd 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically impossible. I've noticed this site before, but the photo there were much smaller than here. No sign of upscaling either. 0x0a (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

printscreen of infobox from Czech Wikipedia Gampe (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment. It is in use, so it can't currently be deleted for scope reasons. I wonder about the copyright status of the image though. I can't see the original file name because the article on Czech Wikipedia was deleted. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @IronGargoyle Tthis is a scan of the infobox from an article that was deleted on the Czech Wikipedia. Gampe (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gampe: Yes, that seemed clear to me. I just can't assess potential copyright concerns about the image because I can't see the original file or filename as it was used in the deleted Czech Wikipedia article infobox. All we have now is this screenshot of the infobox with the image. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IronGargoylethe image is here: File:Doc.Ing. Karel Novotný, CSc.jpg Gampe (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Urbanec: Would you mind taking a look at this guy's deleted article on the Czech Wikipedia (cz:Vytváření Karel Novotný (auditor)) and see if the original photo which was used in the infobox looks to be free? Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No permission available Wasiul Bahar (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The uploader, though not a VRT member, had added a VRT permission tag to the file after the file had been nominated for deletion. I have reverted that change. --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just accepted permission for “File:NCP প্রতিষ্ঠার দিনে নেতাকর্মীদের মিছিল-২.jpg” under ticket:2025030210001791. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader copied this file from https://wnmpkrynica.pl/galeria/kanoniczna-wizytacja-biskupia-kwiecie%C5%84-2024 . He wrote in the description that the author is unknown. It's most probably the licence and the date are wrong and the file violates copyright. Wiktoryn (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Shaan Sengupta as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source given as social media. No link provided. Govt of India works aren't under 4.0 - In use so giving the uploader time to correct the source and prove the license is correct The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Template:Indian navy requires the work to be present on the website so I believe social media won't work here. Please keep that in mind (uploader). Also to note uploader couldn't provide the proper source in a similar image here. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayan painter Petrona Viera Garino (1895–1960), not public domain yet.

• File:Desnudo - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:El cuentito - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:El viejo jardinero - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Flores - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Hortensias - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Joven morena - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:La costura - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Laborde retratodelapintorapetronaviera.jpg
• File:Las bañistas - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Limones - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Muro - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Oceano y costa Rocha - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Paisaje a las 8 - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Petrona Viera - Caretas.png
• File:Petrona Viera - Saltando a la cuerda.png
• File:Petrona Viera - Sin titulo 1.jpg
• File:Petrona Viera 2.jpg
• File:Pinos - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Pinos Atlántida - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Playa de Atlántida - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Playa Malvín - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Puerto de Punta del Este - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Retrato de Luis E Pombo - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Retrato de Luis E. Pombo.jpg
• File:Rocas Malvín - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Tomando sol - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Viento en la playa - Petrona Viera.jpg
• File:Petrona Viera - Recreo.png

Yann (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Petrona Viera - Atlantida.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  At the time the images were uploaded, they were in the public domain since the copyright term in Uruguay was 50 years PMA. In 2019 the law was modified, increasing the term to 70 years PMA. I didn't request the deletion of the images since the law on the extension of the term indicates that the works will return to the private domain "without prejudice to the rights that third parties may have acquired over the reproductions of these works and related rights during the period in which they were in the public domain": https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/19857-2019

  I believe that this can be interpreted in favor of preserving the image.

  Best, Pepe piton (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I add the interpretation (translated here into English) of Edgardo Ettlin, Minister of the Court of Appeals of the Uruguayan Judiciary, in his 2020 publication "Algunas novedades legislativas que conciernen a la temática de la propiedad intelectual (Some legislative developments concerning intellectual property matters)" , also available in his 2021 book “Estudios sobre justicia y propiedad intelectual (Studies on justice and intellectual property)”:

  Understand also, the activities of those who put on the Internet these works that had passed into the public domain before Law No. 19.857 after the expiration of the fifty years, works that in our opinion should not be taken down from the platforms in case these works had already been “uploaded” before the entry into force of this Law mentioned above.

  Diegodlh (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann, there's a painting that is not by Petrona Viera but by Guillermo Laborde (1886-1940) about her. You can see that information at the National Museum of Visual Arts.

[1]https://mnav.gub.uy/cms.php?a=263

So I kindly ask not to erase that picture, please Miacara76 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've changed the link about Laborde:

[2]https://mnav.gub.uy/cms.php?o=3029

and the painting is this:

File:Laborde retratodelapintorapetronaviera.jpg

thanks Miacara76 (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Yann (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The artist who created this poster is not unknown as claimed, and Horst Schlüter is not a pseudonym as claimed. I found some biographical information about Horst Schlüter in an exhibition catalog for a 2012 exhibition in the Munich City Museum about posters in Munich from 1933 to 1945. Horst Schlüter (see Wikidata d:Q132856571) was born in 1911 in Meseritz in the Posen province of Prussia (now called Międzyrzecz in Poland). He worked in Berlin for a while and came to Munich for the first time in 1936 to work as a designer for a Nazi exhibition on bolshevism. He moved to Munich in 1937, working for the Eternal Jew exhibition, and lived there until 1940.

Nothing further is known about his life after 1940. He may have died in the Second World War, or he may have died as an old man in his 70s or 80s, we don't know. But it is clear that the poster is not anonymous or pseudonymous as claimed. And even if there were no artist credit at all, that does not mean we can treat it as anonymous work under German law, because pre-mid 1995 German works of the bildende Künste, like this one, cannot be anonymous or pseudonymous works because the old German copyright law, still relevant in these cases, said so. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works.

So the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2058 with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. If the artist's year of death can be found, the files can be restored 70 years pma, but not before 2033 (URAA).

• File:Der ewige Jude (antisemitic exhibition) postcard + Entartete Kunst Ausstellung (degenerate art leaftlet) Nazi propaganda München November 1937 (Holocaust HL-senteret Oslo, Norway 2021) 9742.jpg
• File:Der ewige Jude Grosse politische Schau im Bibliotheksbau des Deutschen Museums zu München ab 8. November 1937 Plakat Anti-Semitic Nazi poster Münchner Stadtmuseum Munich City Museum 2014.jpg
• File:Der ewige Jude postcard.jpg
• File:Deutsches Museum - Plakat der ewige Jude, 1937.jpg
• File:Museum of World War II Natick Massachusetts 2015. Juden ist die Benutzung der Parkbank verboten Third Reich anti-semittic sign.jpg
• File:Plakat der ewige Jude, 1937.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 09:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, en fait pas d'accord pour la suppression de File:Deutsches Museum - Plakat der ewige Jude, 1937.jpg, car cette illustration montre une affiche "noyée" dans un panorama et, en réalité, assez peu lisible. L'important, dans cette photo, est plutôt la mise en place et l'éclairage de l'affiche à des fins de propagande antisémite. Cdt, Manacore (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that the poster is de minimis in that file. I don't think that is true. Even if it is not in the middle, it is still the central subject of the file and specifically mentioned as such in the file description. Per COM:DM Germany, for a work to be unwesentliches Beiwerk (the German legal term for de minimis), it must not only "fade into the background" or be of "subordinate significance" relative to the primary subject matter; rather, it must not even attain marginal or minor significance. Further examples at the link. This means that the poster is definitely not unwesentliches Beiwerk in the photo. --Rosenzweig τ 15:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The application above is based on false information. Here is a picture of the image in question:

https://www.emuseum.ch/objects/97424/der-ewige-jude--grosse-politische-schau-im-bibliotheksbau-d

As one can clearly see, the “work” is signed with "Hans Stalüter" and not by "Horst Schlüter". Two possibilities:

• This is a pseudonym. Then we can assume that the true author, whoever that was, deliberately refrained from using copyrights (for understandable reasons).
• It is not a pseudonym: No information on “Hans Stalüter” can be found in the art literature. 88 years after the “work” was created and 114 years after the birth of "Horst Schlüter" (in case we assume his was the author, which we cannot), it can be assumed with certainty that no more copyrights would be claimed. If they were, it would be a worldwide press sensation that would fire completely in the wrong direction.

The removal of this work, which is widely used in literature and on the WWW, could easily, on the contrary, negatively affect WP in the press. --Flyingfischer (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying this book Typographie des Terrors, d:Q132855726, written by art historians from the Munich City Museum, with information about Schlüter and his residences in Munich supplied by the Munich City Archive, is wrong about this poster for an exhibition which took place in Munich just because some people read this signature as "Stalüter"? I mean, I can kind of understand the Stalüter part because the signature is not completely clear, but it clearly is not signed Hans, because the first name is abbreviated as H. The book goes on in detail about how Schlüter was hired to come to Munich to work as a designer on this first 1936 exhibition about bolshevism, then stayed and worked on this 1937 exhibition as well, all the while registered in Munich as a graphic designer (Gebrauchsgraphiker), staying as a subtenant and changing his address five times in just two years. So this information wasn't just made up and pulled out of thin air, they clearly had the historical records to work with. --Rosenzweig τ 20:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from what you wrote you apparently don't seem to understand how Wikimedia Commons and copyright in general works. In Germany, there is no need to claim copyright, it is automatic, and you cannot "refrain" from "using copyrights". Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, see Commons:Licensing. If you want to use one of these images at en.wp, you should be able to upload them there as fair use (which is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons). --Rosenzweig τ 20:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Graphiker (graphic artist) named Horst Schlüter in the East Berlin phone books from 1956 (supplement for the 1955 edition), 1957 and 1959 (see East Berlin phone books). Since he apparently worked in Berlin before coming to Munich in 1936, that might be him, though there is no proof of course. Schlüter is not a very rare name, but less common than Schmid(t) or Schulze, and I don't think there were that many graphic artists named Horst Schlüter. --Rosenzweig τ 21:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more research. The H. Stalüter form is an outdated level of knowledge. It's what people got when just trying to read the signature, without any further input by research. I've looked into an older exhibition catalog from 1975, about posters in Munich from 1840 to 1940, also by the Munich City Museum (Plakate in München 1840–1940). They also feature this 1937 Der ewige Jude exhibition poster and just attribute it to H. Stalüter, biographical data unknown, active in Munich in 1937. Then in 2012, the same museum has an exhibition of posters in Munich from 1933 to 1945 (see above), and, with further input by the Munich City Archive, they attribute the poster to Horst Schlüter, born in 1911, first active in Munich in 1936 and living there from 1937 to 1940. This is now the current level of knowledge, as reflected by this 2020 article from the Historisches Lexikon Bayerns (historical lexicon of Bavaria) and this authority record by the German National Library. --Rosenzweig τ 14:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as no permission (No permission since) Krd 09:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian artist Igor Grabar (1871–1960), not public domain yet, as per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia.

• File:Siysky Monastery by Igor Grabar 1920.jpg

Yann (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I understand, most of these images are licensed under {{PD-RusEmpire}}. This was always enough for the paintings created in Russia before 1917, even if the artist died in the 1950s or 1960s. — Adavyd (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I missed that for others, but File:Siysky Monastery by Igor Grabar 1920.jpg is from 1920. Yann (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller, no metadata, unlikely to be own work given uploader's track record.

• File:Vladimir Vanja Grbić.jpg
• File:Владимир Вања Грбић.jpg

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file was replaced by File:Miklós Barabás - Mária Dorottya főhercegnő arcképe.jpg PancoPinco (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Although it's in use across several wikipedias, so someone will have to work through and swap those images over first. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which means it's COM:INUSE and must be a  Speedy keep until and unless it's replaced in all Wikipedia articles in which it is being used. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm more concerned about pages like this ro:Prințesa Hermine de Anhalt-Bernburg-Schaumburg-Hoym which seem to have a confusing use of the image to represent the wrong person? The German page had a similar issue [3]. As this isn't a topic I know, and I'm working in languages I don't know, I've otherwise left these alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

French artist Jean-Pierre Ponnelle (1932–1988), not public domain yet. Yann (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, accidentally nominated the talk page to be deleted earlier. Needs to be fixed soz.

On this file, I strongly believe the May 2011 deletion nomination was correct.

The file on Commons is very low resolution and attributed to a collection which there's not otherwise much trace of online. An identical much higher-resolution version of the photo is available online from a government agency Antarctica New Zealand, who attributes the photo to Phil Reid at The Dominion Post - a commercial newspaper.

https://adam.antarcticanz.govt.nz/nodes/view/30946?lsk=de8e0f5899fe5f8bb246898055352290

The photo is available under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license only. I think there would be a strong case for uploading this as a non-free image to Wikipedia, but it should be done with the correct attribution and a proper version of the original file. DellComputerMonitors (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep the fact that they release a higher resolution version with an NC and ND restriction, does not revoke the original broader release. This file has been checked and double-checked back in 2011/2012. Jcb (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the provenance of the photo was ever determined in 2011/2012. It's obvious there's a lot of speculation about where the photo exactly came from in the discussion. At the time, on balance, it was decided that the uploader may have even taken it himself. It's obvious the exact source of the photo itself was unclear when a decision was made to keep it.

e.g. "I find it quite credible that he traveled to Antarctica in 2004 and took the photograph he claims as his. There is certainly no evidence of earlier publication of this image, in any form, prior to its publication on Wikipedia in 2006, the full size version doesn't seem to have appeared anywhere until 2008."

But there's clear evidence the photo was taken by a professional photographer working for a prominent newspaper, alongside an array of other photos taken during the same shoot. The photographer and newspaper have gone on to subsequently release some of those photos under a particular CC licence via a government agency.

The next step would be to go review a copy of The Dominion Post from November 2004, around the time of the anniversary, which would be pretty determinative of where the photo first appeared, which I may go to do later this week DellComputerMonitors (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at copies of The Dominion Post on microfilm. The photo on Wikipedia and on the Antarctica NZ site is re-produced in high quality on the front page of the November 29, 2004 edition. The photo is attributed in caption to The Dominion Post. November editions also talk about Phil Reid being the newspaper's photographer in Antarctica at the time.

I can provide a scanned copy of the microfilm, though not quite sure how. I note in the 2011/12 discussions, there's a fair bit of weight placed on the fact the earliest known publication of the photo was on Wikipedia in 2006.

In any case, it means the first known publication of this photo definitely predated the low-resolution Wikipedia upload by two years, and was attributed in that source to a newspaper photographer. I'm sceptical that the original uploader would have been officially representing Fairfax, The Dominion Post, or the original photographer when he uploaded the photo for public domain usage in Commons. The original uploader does not mention this in any capacity.

I would have to imagine COM:PRP would apply here. DellComputerMonitors (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This one might be de minimis, but I'm guessing it will be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Azerbaijan Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file is blatantly false. It does not cite a source, and falsely spreads religions and sects. Idlib is not a Christian majority region. And Afrin region is not Shia majority. It should not be displayed on any Wiki, therefore it should be deleted. Ecrusized (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment In use. Better map welcome. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same as File:IPhone size comparison.svg, but svg is probably more friendly for updating and editing than png file type. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is having an identical svg version of a file grounds for deletion? I didn't know that. Jerimee (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more reason to delete this is that this is an upload of IPhone17.BO (talk · contribs), who had uploaded at least one infringing file. Unreliable uploader. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial photo sourced from Vectare with no clear license release for Creative Commons, see: https://cbwmagazine.com/vectare-launches-bigger-business-better-buses-strategy/ Hullian111 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by M3zzz00 as no permission (No permission since)  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged by the uploader themselves, but the source video was CC licensed at https://web.archive.org/web/20250204233400/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCWkE0gGDIU  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Molim pobrisati sliku. Autor je promijenio prava, a provjera nije odrađena na vrijeme. M3zzz00 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licenses are not revokable. We can see at the archived link that it was published with the license.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   01:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Messines, Jean (1900-1989)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Plagnat, François (1906-1993)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Hallez, Jacques (1923-2021)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Guinier, Philibert (1876-1962)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Pizzi, Pier Luigi (1930-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Mosseri, Richard (1897-1983)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Déro (1920-2000)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Lem (1925-2009)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Saint Phalle, Niki de (1930-2002)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Girbal, Gaston (1888-1978)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Sola Franco, Eduardo (1915-1996)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Ibach, Christophe (1954-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/George, Henri (1919-2012)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Jéhan, Louis (1906-1996)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Pellos (1900-1998)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Fleurac, Louis de (1876-1965)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Prudhomme, Émile (1871-1963)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Will (1899-1996)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Erlanger de Rosen, Max (1887-1961)

Commons:Deletion requests/Ordner, Paul (1901-1969)

Commons:Deletion requests/Colin, Paul (1892-1985)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Guiraud-Rivière, Maurice (1881-1967)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Solon, Albert (1897-1973)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Sepulchre, Patrice (1948-2006)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Sempé, Jean-Jacques (1932-2022)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Piem (1923-2020)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Domergue, Jean-Gabriel (1889-1962)

Commons:Deletion requests/Lido, Serge (1906-1984)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Weill, Étienne Bertrand (1919-2001)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Gottmann, Jean (1915-1994)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Nordmann, Anne (1942-...)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Marée-Breyer (Ivry, Val-de-Marne)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Cande, Daniel (1938-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Estournet, Jean-Pierre (1955-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Anna Birgit (1936-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Martin du Theil, Jean-Marc (1941-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Alechinsky, Pierre (1927-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Brandt, Edgar (1880-1960)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Kerhor, Jean (1876-1974)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Porter, Liliana (1941-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Hélion, Jean (1904-1987)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Villemot, Bernard (1911-1989)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Boucher, Lucien (1889-1971)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Falcucci, Robert (1900-1989)

Commons:Deletion requests/Verger, Pierre (1902-1996)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Varla, Félix (1903-1986)

Commons:Deletion requests/Micha (1919-1987)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Autant-Lara, Claude (1901-2000)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Hella-Arno (1904-2000)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Cocteau, Jean (1889-1963)

Commons:Deletion requests/Marée, Nicole (1938-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Bottin, Jean (1946?-....)

Commons:Deletion requests/Krohg, Per Lasson (1889-1965)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Ora (1881-1963)

Commons:Deletion requests/Pagès, Pierre (19..-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Serraillier, Michel (1919-....)

Commons:Deletion requests/Dambier, Georges (1925-2011)

Commons:Deletion requests/Laurent, Michèle (1947-....)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Ferrari, Pierre (1942-2003)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Dannès, Pierre J. (1910-1985)

Commons:Deletion requests/Coste, René (1907-2004)  Done

Commons:Deletion requests/Others images

No public domain in France. Gzen92 (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Shaan Sengupta as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Website copyright policy says Email permission required. The emblem of India is in the public domain, but the logo of Press Council (with the stylized bird) is probably not. Yann (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nomination. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as Logo Is the ball above COM:TOO? This is a very common symbol. Yann (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but the problem is that COM:TOO Egypt is a red link. That question is being discussed in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:MFORWAUbadge.jpg thread, in which it's been asserted that as a practical matter, whatever copyright laws Egypt has are not being enforced, leading to the likelihood that Commons will enforce laws on the books that might have no real force of law, but I'm quite aware that "no-one would actually complain" is not a keep rationale on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Jimfbleak as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyvio - from other sources, not own work Yann (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright GlobalMusicFan (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright GlobalMusicFan (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the uploader and the person making the delete request? I'm confused. Jerimee (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright GlobalMusicFan (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying in each case that you stole the photos from another photographer, all of them do need to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file was replaced by File:Carl Baumbach - Großherzogin Cäcilie von Oldenburg.jpg PancoPinco (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

artist is born 1981 und still alive, this image needs a written permission of him to be published Mateus2019 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artist explicitly agreed to be photographed for Wikimedia beforehand (not in writing). If you consider it insufficient do as you please or consider necessary. I do not have means or time to provide any further documentation/written statements etc. as it was done during the exhibition I visited and I do not have personal contact of him.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution image and uses the gif format which is not compatible with uploading a better resolution of the same image Undescribed (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Claimed by uploader as 'own work', 2025; but appears in Acadia 2024 at https://celebmafia.com/greta-bellamacina-arcadia-2024-chanel-special-4210602/ GrindtXX (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Thanks for the delete request. Jerimee (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fake license – no information about CC-BY in the source Rampion (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a NASA image. See: https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/54359866846 Agile Jello (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment it is part of a NASA mission tho, who owns the copyright for this particular picture? (if one look at articles like https://www.cite-espace.com/actualites-spatiales/blue-ghost-est-sur-la-lune/ some pictures are credited "Firefly Aerospace / NASA", some only "Firefly Aerospace" and some only "NASA"…). Before X and Flickr, what is the true source for this file? Also, there is other pictures in Category:Blue Ghost Mission 1 (and in Category:CLPS Missions as well) that could be in the same situation. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken by Firefly's Blue Ghost lander. This is a private mission. NASA only paid to deploy some instruments to the surface. The lander is designed and operated by Firefly. Reliable sources that credit only Firefly to the photo: [6] [7] [8] [9]. NASA's news release gives copyright only to Firefly Space for a similar photo: [10] Agile Jello (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NASA has now released this image in their website and they explicitly credit only Firefly Aerospace: [11] Agile Jello (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Agile Jello, that's much clearer now. If there is no other objection, I'll proceed to the deletion soon. Meanwhile, could you check the other similar pictures to check the credit? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical images with unclear copyright status, bogus author and licence tags

• File:Ахтырская церковь.jpg
• File:Старый Оскол храмы.jpg
• File:-xAMUS8rpPU.jpg
• File:XO4cfo9qlVU.jpg
• File:GWyziXXH5eI.jpg
• File:Оскол 98.jpg
• File:Старый Оскол ул Курская 1893.jpg

Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubt its own work. Very likely copy vio seefooddiet (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Metadata at first seems to support claim of own work, the only somewhat suspicious thing is that the file has went through Photoshop, but lots of photographers make their photos look good before sharing.

The real thing that makes me suspicious is that the rest of their own work uploads are taken with an iPhone, not a professional camera like this file was. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the user who uploaded this has been engaging in a lot of COI-y behavior on Wikipedia. If it is their photo, I suspect they have unusual close access to the subjects of the articles they're writing on. seefooddiet (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Nazareth_(La_Guajira).jpg
• File:Iglesia_de_San_Onofre_(Colombia).png
• File:Acandí, Nuestra Señora del Carmen.JPG
• File:San Isidro (Bolívar).png
• File:Chepacorinas, Casadillas de Coco y Panochas.jpg
• File:Florencia (Caldas).jpg
• File:Cabecera municipal de El Carmen de Bolívar.png
• File:Macayepo - Casa típica.png

Many of the user's uploads were blatant copyright violations, from facebook and other social media and various websites. I could not confirm copyright violation of these images, but doubt their better - some are found multiple other places online but I couldn't confirm all predated Commons upload, others small website resolution, etc. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Me-Dam-Me-Phi.jpg
• File:Me-Dam-Me-Phi festival.jpg
• File:Khmer dress.jpg
• File:Khmer bride and groom.jpg
• File:Pchum Ben.jpg

COM:PCP, varying quality. Metadata casts doubt on claim of own work, especially when compared to the metadata of their later uploads.--TansoShoshen (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User has history of uploading false claims of own work with regards to files regarding ethnic groups of Southeast Asian origin. TansoShoshen (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis l'auteur et le detenteur legal du dorit d'auteur de la photo et les droits cités dans la photo ne sont pas vraies ! la photo est protegée par COPYRIGHTS ! fabrizio verrecchia 37.170.74.202 23:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Commons complies with the request of the original author for such deletion requests, (in my opinion, this hasn't been identified/established yet, but more experienced volunteers can judge better), I will add this message for the sake of reference, that this image was uploaded on Unsplash on Jan 23, 2017; before the change in their licensing choice came into being on June 5, 2017; and since then, the original author has deleted the image from Unsplash. Sadly, wayback machine is down for me, and I am unable to link an archived page with the proper information about the copyright to make a stronger case that it was not uploaded as a copyvio. Acagastya (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]