Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/14: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Line 92: Line 92:
{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146III-105, Joseph Wirth (cropped) (cropped).jpg}}
{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146III-105, Joseph Wirth (cropped) (cropped).jpg}}
{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagaoka kouki.jpg}}
{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagaoka kouki.jpg}}
{{Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Miami B}}

Revision as of 15:03, 14 June 2024

June 14

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

seems unlikely that the contributor is the copyright holder for the model; claim of freedom of panorama would need to indicate where it is being held for display  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

image as portrayed is not exhibiting educational value; no authorship, no location of image; not high quality; to be retained needs further information, a useful name and better categorisation  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This painting located in Singapore. Probably no FoP TentingZones1 (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Deleted: per nomination, and unknown copyright status. --P 1 9 9   00:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Mispronunciation: Audio like Paccaikkuḻantai வாலைப்பழத்திற்காக (vālaippaḻattiṟkāka) viḻuntu viḻuntu aḻutatu, This should be like வாழைப்பழத்திற்காக (vāḻaippaḻattiṟkāka). Some examples of pronunciation: File:Ta-வாழை.oga, File:LL-Q5885 (tam)-Sriveenkat-வாழைப்பழம்.wav. Sriveenkat (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Kept: COM:INUSE. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Spoof (?) image with an unknown source (described as a “self-portrait” but obviously not in fact). It also seems that the image has covered a normal image of Mendel on other wikis. Keiri (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   00:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyrighted movie scene, definitely not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

 Speedy delete: Again. It's Toy Story 3. - THV | | U | T - 02:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Deleted: G4. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

According to the license history on Flickr, this was licensed under BY-NC-SA at the time it was uploaded to Commons. RadioKAOS (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Some more details. This is a list of the users who uploaded or reviewed files of this flickr account:
User:Adam~commonswiki 7 uploads
User:Nilfanion (former administrator, VRT member) 1 review
User:Rodrigo.Argenton 1 retouched upload
User:Calliopejen 8 uploads
User:FlickreviewR (review bot) 51 reviews
User:Riana 1 upload
User:Aconcagua 6 uploads (through User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske))
User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) 6 reviews
User:Imzadi1979 1 retouched upload
User:Boricuaeddie 6 uploads
User:Talgraf777 1 upload
User:Djlayton4 1 upload
User:Electron (license reviewer) 2 uploads
User:Sandstein 2 uploads
User:Kanchelskis 3 uploads
User:Arria Belli (former administrator) 3 uploads
User:One last pharaoh 1 upload
User:Mattbuck (former administrator) 1 review
User:Sylfred1977 2 uploads
User:Überraschungsbilder 12 uploads
User:Asta~commonswiki 2 uploads
User:O (former administrator) 1 review
User:FloNight 1 upload
User:Lokal_Profil (former administrator) 1 review
User:Urban~commonswiki 2 uploads
User:TheLarch 1 upload
User:Dodo (former administrator) 1 review
User:Ww2censor (license reviewer) 1 upload
It seems that all the files were uploaded from 2005 to early 2008. I think the latest upload was made on 5 May 2008. Unsurprisingly, most users listed are now inactive on Commons. Still, many of them were serious users. In total, 28 users participated in handling the files of this flickr account, including 21 uploaders, 2 reviewer bots and 5 human reviewers. They can't all have been wrong about the license. It's practically impossible. Also, it seems significant that all the uploads are from before mid-2008 and none since then. That's unlikely to be because all those Commons users, reviewers and bots were all making the same mistake before mid-2008 and then everybody stopped making that mistake after mid-2008. The more logical hypothesis is that the license changed at the flickr account. And there may be one technical fault in the flickr system that makes it unable to find and correctly display license changes made before some date, say mid-2008 (at least at that flickr account, possibly at other or at all accounts). -- Asclepias (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Flicker had a big issue; you could change the license to a more restricted one.
If our bot attested, by no margin of error, the image at that time was at cc-by 2.0.
This was a very simply check that bot those, and Flicker reviewers became obsolete.
Basically,  Keep and ignore all other comparison at Flicker website, it is unreliable by now. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Flickr did not show a license history in the past, it does show a license history for some time now. As far as I know, it is not a bug, but a feature that Flickr users can (still) change a "license to a more restricted one". @Rodrigo.Argenton: @Asclepias suggests that the display of the license history is wrong at least for one flickr account for license changes before 2008, but to me it seems, that you do not think that, but consider something different? I remember that one of my imports was deleted because OTRS member Olaf Kosinsky said, that License Review Bots are not to be trusted. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
It was a typo, big issue.
If the user can change to a more restricted one, that is it. You cannot under after 10 years and say that the license is incorrect. Simply as that.
Olaf Kosinsky is wrong, the bot is quite simply, and reliable. I do not understand the point of further discussion. If the user can change the license, and we reviewed the license back there, the most reasonable is imagine that the user change the license after the bot attest it. Not the other way. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
At this point, it looks like it's close to 100% certain that there is a problem in the flickr license history system, that it cannot deal correctly with old license statuses of some old flickr uploads, and as a result it displays unreliable or wrong information. The cut date for unreliability might be 17 July 2008. On images uploaded to flickr later than 2008, it is often indicated that there is no license history before 17 July 2008. About the comment by Olaf Kosinsky, context would be necessary to know what it was about, but maybe he simply commented that bots check what license exists at the flickr source, but they do not check if the flickr user is the legitimate copyright owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Looking at a 2007 photo from a different flickr account, the license history displays the usual note stating that "there is no license history before 17 July 2008" and it displays a subsequent change of license made on 13 August 2008. So, I'm guessing that the problem with the license histories on flickr may affect flickr images whose license was changed before 17 July 2008, by displaying in their license history a text that seems to imply that the license had not changed since the upload to flickr. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
 Keep Given the number of different people who uploaded from this Flickr account with parallel claims about licensing, it beggars belief that all of these users were involved in some sort of fraud, rather than that Flickr has an error in terms of tracking the licensing history of these files. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]
 Keep FlickreviewR confirmed the license. It would not have done that if the license at the time was not what it said what it was. Authors are always free to stop distributing files under a free license (which is effectively what they do when they change the license on Flickr, nothing wrong with that). But files already copied under that license are not revocable. Given that its was uploaded by a user looking for free images on Flickr, and confirmed by bot, I would more suspect an error in Flickr's early data. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Kept: as per above discussion. --Yann (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

on an article at wiki (in use), though that has now been nominated for deletion  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Please check metadata, it is very likely from a Facebook or another Meta service, maybe copyvio. S8321414 (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Beaver Building is distorted here. There are better images like File:WTM3 PAT M IN NYC 0060.jpg and File:WTM3 PAT M IN NYC 0058.jpg, in which the building does not look distorted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   01:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyrighted citation by Paulo Coelho. RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

 Delete, Facebook, per exif. メイド理世 (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
 Comment: メイド理世, a file being from Facebook isn't per se a reason to delete it. For instance, uploader could have uploaded it to Facebook, deleted the original, and just later decided to upload it to Commons. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image published in Argentine magazine Somos in 1984. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]



Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Source is the book "Quiera el pueblo votar" published in Argentina in 2017. Copyright protection in Argentina is 20 years after first publication and 25 years after creation. We only have evidence of the second condition. To keep this image we need the info of its first publication to ensure it is in the public domain in both Argentina and the US. Günther Frager (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Still not outside of 20 years, but per Worldcat, Quiera el pueblo votar : imágenes de un siglo de campañas políticas was first published in 2007, not 2017. That said, while the specific page for this image isn't reproduced on Google Books per the book's back cover and what is visible, it consists of images of previously published items ("Reproduce afiches, pintadas, volantes, votos, actos, movilizaciones, libros y objetos que se suceden cronológicamente"). While having the exact details of first publication is important, it seems unlikely that this book would be the first place the image was published. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the source, I took the 2017 from the publisher [4], but it is probably a reprint. The problem is that any photo taken in Argentina after 1971 needs proper sources as most of them are still copyrighted in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low resolution, missing EXIF data, uploaded by single edit account, probably not own work. 188.123.231.76 10:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Source is the, now defunct, website of the photographer person. Günther Frager (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Professional wrestling magazines

Screengrabs of photos from professional wrestling magazines, mostly from Internet Archive, have been a problem since they started appearing on the site five years ago. The half-assed, piecemeal approach of single-file DRs has not helped. If anything, it's perhaps made the problem worse. Users see content remaining on the site and then proceed to upload further content in the same vein, with their own peculiar interpretations of copyright law as it concerns the lack of a copyright notice.

The bulk of this request focuses on the so-called "Apter mags", the family of magazines published under the corporate names G.C. London and T.V. Sports. Most if not all of their magazines published between summer 1973 and late 1977 are in the public domain due to the lack of a copyright notice. However, this content comes from later issues. The criteria justifying {{PD-US-no notice}} ≠ the criteria justifying {{PD-US-1978-89}}, yet most of these files appear to claim PD based solely on the lack of a copyright notice without acknowledgement of extenuating circumstances. I initiated a similar DR last year. The closing admin provided the following:

I found the following copyright registrations in the copyright.gov database:

  1. V2833P041 for GC London Publishing, which covers the following titles:
    1. Inside wrestling
    2. Victory sports series
    3. World boxing
    4. Wrestling superstars
    5. The Wrestler
  2. V2833P043 for TV Sports Inc / GC London Publishing
    1. KO magazine
    2. Pro wrestling
Searching the database myself, it showed that the above-listed registrations were filed and recorded in 1992, so these copyrights would be valid.

Published in the "Apter mags" with a claim of no copyright notice. Based on what I found at Internet Archive and other places online, these magazines contained copyright notices through the May 1973 cover date. The earliest issue I found without a copyright notice bore an August 1973 cover date.

Published in Wrestling Revue. This magazine was published in Canada, so {{PD-US-no notice}} simply does not apply. While I didn't spend a whole lot of time on the matter, I couldn't find anything in Canadian copyright law pertaining to material falling into the public domain due to lack of a copyright notice.

UPDATE: I had a little time so I investigated further. Wrestling Revue was published in Canada for a number of years, bookended by periods where it was published in the U.S. Most issues do contain a valid copyright notice but some do not. There appears to be no consistent pattern to it, unlike the Apter mags. The Canadian publisher listed a Montreal address and many of the above photos center on the pro wrestling scene at the time in Quebec. Regardless, COM:PCP also applies here, as the uploader(s) and source(s) are pretty much the same as those referred to below, and just as unverifiable unless the specific issue is hosted on Internet Archive.

I didn't have time to dig deeper and had sketchy Internet access last evening, so I had to come back to this. The coverage of this magazine on Internet Archive is scattershot at best. The 1971 issues found there, not including the one referenced in the above list, were published in the U.S. and bear valid copyright notices. The January 1973 issue was published in the U.S. with a defective copyright notice ("All rights reserved by Champion Sports Publishing Corp. 1972"). The earliest issue published in Canada bore a May 1973 cover date. This continued to be the case until 1982, when it was again published in the U.S. by many of the same individuals previously involved with Champion Sports Publishing.

Published in Wrestling All Stars, which very clearly shows a copyright notice at the given source.

Published in GLOW, which very clearly shows a copyright notice at the given source.

Published in Championship Wrestling, which very clearly shows a copyright notice at the given source.

Published in The Ring's Wrestling Magazine, which very clearly shows a copyright notice at the given source.

Published in Wrestling Guide. COM:PCP applies, as the numerous eBay sources this uploader scrounged from are pretty much unverifiable at this point (I tried the Wayback Machine). I couldn't find this particular issue online apart from the cover. Other issues I've found online do include a copyright notice.

Published in Wrestling Sports Stars. COM:PCP also applies for the same reason, the numerous eBay sources this uploader scrounged from are pretty much unverifiable at this point (I tried the Wayback Machine). I couldn't find this particular issue online. The 1973 issue I found on Internet Archive and the 1974 issue I personally own both contain a copyright notice.

Addition to the original nomination, which I discovered while adding the Ellis photo to his Wikipedia article. Published in Wrestling Confidential. This issue is on Internet Archive and does contain a copyright notice. The only other file from this magazine I found on Commons was from 1987. That issue did not contain a copyright notice.
--RadioKAOS (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Hello there,
Some of these files were uploaded by myself. I did so on the basis that I believed they were in the public domain (under Template:PD-US-1978-89) because, after careful examination, the magazine the images appeared in did not have any correct copyright notice and I was not aware that their copyright was renewed at any point. I was careful not to upload from magazines which did contain valid copyright notices, such as GLOW magazine or from publishers such as JEMS, Inc.
RadioKaos has pointed out that it may be the case that G.C. London/T.V. Sports did renew their copyright on 23 October 1992, which I was previously unaware of.
Can I ask for a clarification? Does that October 1992 renewal retroactively cover their entire catalogue? Or does it only cover images from 5 years previously, ie 23 October 1987?
Template:PD-US-1978-89 states "its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years."
Surely this would mean that images published between 1978 and 23 October 1987 were not registered within 5 years, and thus those images are still valid for Template:PD-US-1978-89. If this is the case, I would ask that images published between 1978 and 23 October 1987 be retained. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@CeltBrowne: A copyright expert will have to comment. From what I can tell, the registration requirement was within five years following the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, which was March 1, 1989. Also, it wouldn't cover their entire catalog. The Copyright Act of 1976 took effect on January 1, 1978 and specified that any published works lacking a copyright notice to that point were PD.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@RadioKAOS As per Copyright Office's Circular 3 regarding Copyright Notice:

"An omission or mistake in using a copyright notice may not have invalidated the copyright to works published between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989, if... The work was registered before or within five years after the publication without notice and a reasonable effort was made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords distributed in the United States after the omission was discovered"

This verbiage seems pretty clear that the registration should have been made whithin 5 years of the publication and not the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. Pfcab (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Office's Circular 3 regarding Copyright Notice Pfcab (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Thank you for that clarification. It seemed highly unlikely to me that an image published in 1980 and in the public domain could be taken back out of the public domain an entire 12 years later.
So to reinitiate, based on that information, I believe that all images published by GC London/TV Sports without a copyright notice before 23 October 1987 should be retained. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Also, if what you're saying does prove to be the case, how can a publication date be determined in edge cases? I know at least in the case of the Apter mags, they mailed to subscribers via a certain class of mail in order to avoid any requirement for a circulation audit, which would have provided that date. The cover date is no indication: they often appeared on newsstands prior to that month, plus were actually produced as long as four or five months prior in order to satisfy the printer's lead time requirements.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Hello, I will not protest the deletion. I did not know about how mass deletions work at the time, and, as I got a message telling me one by one deletion is not acceptable, I felt frustrated, I stopped and forgot about it with time, as no other action has been taken. I am really sorry the situation got worse. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@RadioKAOS: I agree that determining the exact date when this magazines were published is difficult, but as you pointed out the magazines were in cirulation before the cover date. Therefore, there would be no edge cases where an edition was published after the date indicated on it's cover date.
Furthermore, as per Copyright Office's Circular 1 regarding Copyright Basics: [5]

Under copyright law, publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending. Offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of people for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display also constitutes publication.

Which means even if the magazines only began to be sold exactly on the day indicated by the cover date it would already be considered to be published before that date as they would have already been distributed to resellers. Pfcab (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@RadioKAOS: OK, I'm sure you know better than I about copyright issues. Krok6kola (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[]
✓ Done --Geohakkeri (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Awesome, thank you! Consigned (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[]



Deleted: deleted the files from the first batch published after Oct. 1987, kept files from first batch published before Oct. 1987 per discussion. Deleted the other batches per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

On a now-deleted gallery page, the uploader says "This is a selfie image of Priyanka Ares". On the upload, they say that they are the photographer. It doesn't look like a selfie, but the photographer must be clarified. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: already deleted by The Squirrel Conspiracy. --Rosenzweig τ 11:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

EXIF indicates a screenshot - uploader has only copyright violations as contributions Whpq (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
COM:NOTUSED: the image is a falsification - the head of Admiral V. S. Zavoyko was "glued" to the figure of General of Infantry A. P. Khrushchev in a photo editor. See: 80.234.76.43 14:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Everything is quite clear, it needs to be deleted. The value of the image of a certain officer with arbitrary orders is zero--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination, uploader agrees. --Achim55 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

1927 poem on a poster. It is unclear who produced this poster, the uploader put a "self" licence on it. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]



Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Brandymodel (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: as previously, vanity content, including some derivative works.

Omphalographer (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 23:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I'm unable to find any reference to this flag outside of Wikipedia. Tempted to say that this is imaginary work and therefore out of scope. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Actually, I was able to find https://www.belgiumwwii.be/belgique-en-guerre/articles/wallonie-libre-la.html which shows a logo (not a flag) related to a Resistance movement called "La Wallonie Libre". Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I'm still in favor of removing this made-up flag, and replacing its usage with the actual original logo. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I do not understand why you want to remove the flag. There are sources relating the existence of this flag. The file is usefull. Sthubertliege (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]
There are 2 reasons why I think this file should be removed:
  • Unless a source is provided that this logo was used as a flag, it is an interpretation of the logo and therefore not historically accurate.
  • An actual picture of the flag would be preferable to this file which has gone through several versions, hinting at the fact that it is not accurate.
The file can be replaced with File:Logo La Wallonie Libre.png. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Kept: in use. You can add {{Factual accuracy}} for now. --P 1 9 9   18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]

Unsourced/fantasy flag. Although it is true that the central emblem was indeed used by the underground newspaper Wallonie Libre during the occupation period, there is no evidence that it was ever made into a flag or has any existence outside of the creator's mind. The movement has indeed used another flag since the 1970s (e.g. 1, 2) which we already have on commons in a separate file. Any uses of this file on Wikipedia are easily substitutable with one of the two other images and appear to have been added by the creator or a closely affiliated account. ((Brigade Piron (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[]

I do not undertsand why you want to delete this file. The flag has been built directly from archives of the website : Wallonie libre (La) (belgiumwwii.be), which contains lot of references of the red and yellow logo. The are lots of examples on this website : La Wallonie Libre | The Belgian War Press (cegesoma.be). On the other hand, this file : File:Flag of Wallonie Libre.jpg — Wikimedia Commons has been built on pure imagination ! You should focus your deletation efforts on this document, not mine. Really, I do not see why you want to delete this file. We have perfectly the right to build a modern version of the flag based on original documents. The flag is correctly referencing the original logo with walloon rooster and Lorraine cross. There is no reason why it would makes problem for you. Please respect users right to import better quality version of historical logo, wich is a way to improve Wikipedia files. Sthubertliege (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[]
Please provide evidence that this flag has ever existed. I'm talking about a flag, not a logo. Transforming a logo into a flag that never existed is what is discussed here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[]
I agree. The logo clearly existed - and we already have it here although frankly I'm not sure of the copyright position. The use of the devise as part of a flag is pure fantasy, however. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[]
 Delete There is no evidence that this logo was used as a flag, and it was added to Wikipedia articles such as List of Belgian flags. Where needed, the historically accurate File:Logo La Wallonie Libre.png should be used instead. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is licensed as CC-0, which does not reflect the copyright statement at the source. If this image were first published in Eritrea and nowhere else within 30 days and if it was not published as part of a book or collection or bore the address of an agent, it would be in the public domain in Eritrea. However, it is taken from a Swedish website with a copyright statement, and I just think that without further evidence we cannot assert all those conditions. Felix QW (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by 211.243.137.72 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F3 Uploader not informed. Unlikely to be own work, but I can't find a source on the Net. Yann (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: copyvio, many uncropped versions readily found online. --P 1 9 9   18:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Miami B (talk · contribs)

Bulk COM:NETCOPYVIOs stolen from social media, Flickr, etc. - File:Cattle..M.jpg is here; File:Rabbit...9.jpg is here; File:View of rwanda.jpg is here; File:Volcano ...6.jpg is here; File:Urusyo1.jpg is here; File:Weaving of traditional.jpg is here; File:Creativit.jpg is here; File:On ground.jpg is here, and on and on and on....

Эlcobbola talk 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]


Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]