Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

May

[edit]

May 1

[edit]

Лицензия ложная, в источнике копирайт -- Tomasina (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Лицензия ложная, в источнике копирайт -- Tomasina (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Лицензия ложная, в источнике копирайт -- Tomasina (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Лицензия ложная, в источнике копирайт -- Tomasina (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Лицензия ложная, в источнике копирайт -- Tomasina (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте. Данная фотография является свободно распространяемой. Оригинал находится в архиве физико-математического факультета БГПУ и на его сайте. Владелец авторских прав согласен на лицензирование файла под данной лицензией. HistoryBSPU (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

non free logo Mike Rohsopht (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From File:Victoria University of Wellington logo national crest vertical.png" on witch this svg is based on: "This New Zealand work is in the public domain in New Zealand, because its copyright has expired or it is not subject to copyright (details). According to the New Zealand Copyright Act of 1994 as elaborated on by the Standing Committee on Copyright of the Library and Information Association of New Zealand (LIANZA), as of May 2011"--RicHard-59 (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is certainly not that old. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

non free logo Mike Rohsopht (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PACKAGING. メイド理世 (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Current flag was copyrighted TentingZones1 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is public domain as a government work (local government unit) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is superseded by File:Seal of Virginia.svg, and it has never been used. Thanks! Patrick Neil, oѺ/Talk 12:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The audio file may deviate slightly from the notes on the music sheet, which could potentially lead to some discrepancies in interpretation. Look at File:Shumi Maritsa.mid, File:Shumi Maritsa.ogg, File:Bulgarian Anthem Music Sheet.InstrumentalSimple (1886-1947).svg. Carbonaro. (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The audio file may deviate slightly from the notes on the music sheet, which could potentially lead to some discrepancies in interpretation. Look at File:Shumi Maritsa.mid, File:Shumi Maritsa.ogg, File:Bulgarian Anthem Music Sheet.InstrumentalSimple (1886-1947).svg Carbonaro. (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Zoosystema, 42(17):239-284 (2020).

[edit]

Although these images were seemingly posted at the given source, the repository Zenodo, on June 15 2020 together with the scientific journal paper they are taken from, that paper was published on June 09 2020 in the journal Zoosystema, closed access and copyrighted by Publications scientifiques du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (https://doi.org/10.5252/zoosystema2020v42a17). This strongly suggests to me that in the process of publication, the authors transferred their copyright to the Paris Museum and were therefore unable effectively to release the images (and the entire article) under a CC0 dedication. Of course, this relies on the fact that they transferred the copyright before the CC0 dedication, but that seems highly likely to me.

Felix QW (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pt: Não encontrei no site de origem, https://lendasdofutebol.com/, qualquer indicação que alguma parte de seu conteúdo esteja disponibilizado sob uma icença livre. // en: I have not found in the source website, https://lendasdofutebol.com/, any indication that its content or any part of it is made avalable under a free license. Solon 26.125 14:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

תמונה לא טובה Dushi1980 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenshot?! 186.175.173.219 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 long standing consensus and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany stamps are not "official works" of the German government. Therefore they are not in the public domain and their copyright expires 70 years after the death of the creator. In this case the creator, Axel Bengs, died in 1988. So the stamp is copyrighted until at least 2,058. I'm also nominating all other images of stamps in Category:Stamps by Axel Bengs for the same reason. It's possible a few are PD, but I don't feel like listing 107 individual files in the same DR. I encourage people to look through the images to make sure none of them are public domain though. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, just the one file, please list the rest separately. This stamp had two artists, the other one is de:Rudolf Skribelka, who died in 2015. Since the stamp is from 1958, {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} will apply in 2029, so the stamp can be restored in 2054 after its URAA-restored US copyright has expired. --Rosenzweig τ 13:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This file showing a German communist who was born in 1896 and died in 1945 was uploaded with a license tag that claims that the photograph is in the public domain because its author died over 70 years ago, but no author is named. The immediate source the file was taken from, [1], claims that the photo is from "before 1933" and does not name an author. That does not mean that the photo is anonymous in a legal sense however, because no further details at all (about date and place it was taken, when and where it was first published etc.) are given. So we cannot ascertain the copyright status of this photo, and it might still be protected by copyright in both Germany (where it presumably originated) and the US. Being from "before 1933", it is also not old enough (at least 120 years old) to qualify for the {{PD-old-assumed}} license tag. It's certainly not from 1904 (when the man shown was eight years old) or earlier. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to actually be in the public domain or under a free license. It can be restored in 2054 with PD-old-assumed. Rosenzweig τ 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file showing Arkadi Maslow, a Russian communist who was born in 1891 and died in 1941, and said to be from ca. the 1920s was uploaded with a license tag that claims that the photograph is in the public domain because its author died over 70 years ago, but no author is named. The immediate source the file was taken from is given as Amazon, but actually it's from a book sold by Amazon where an excerpt can be read. No author of the photo is named there, but that does not mean that the photo is anonymous in a legal sense however, because no further details at all (about date and place it was taken, when and where it was first published etc.) are given. So we cannot ascertain the copyright status of this photo, and it might still be protected by copyright in both Germany (where it might have originated if it is from the 1920s) and the US. Being from the 1920s is also not old enough (at least 120 years old) to qualify for the {{PD-old-assumed}} license tag. It's certainly not from 1904 (when the man shown was thirteen years old) or earlier. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to actually be in the public domain or under a free license.

Rosenzweig τ 16:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Wikishovel as Copyvio (copyright) and the most recent rationale was: non-free logo copied from https://www.issuewire.com/motzoid-india-an-film-production-company-1731626352204640 and elsewhere online I think it's below COM:TOO India. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by TimWu007 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted school logo: COM:TOO China? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

我确实没有完全的授权,我的意见是可以删除。 Dahanbeige (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image subject to copyright infringement it was uploaded by other than the copyright holder - the image is regestered with the US copyrigt office Endtoendjustice (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kein offizielles Wappen, sondern Idee eines Verschönerungsvereins - out of scope. GerritR (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Porque lo subi sin usar una etiqueta Puma207 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Lihle_Mhlakaza CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wahrscheinlich Fehllizenzierung - hier handelt es sich um ein Filmplakat Lutheraner (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wahrscheinlich Fehllizenzierung - hier handelt es sich um ein Filmplakat Lutheraner (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

[edit]
Previous group nominations
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.

Out of scope: all of the flags included in this nomination are unused outside userspace and do not appear to be associated with either any notable work of fiction or any real or historical country.

(This is the first of what will probably be a series of nominations. There is, unfortunately, a lot more where this came from.)

Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope: as before, all of the flags included in this nomination are unused outside userspace and do not appear to be associated with either any notable work of fiction or any real or historical country.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope: part 3! As previously, all of the flags included in this nomination are unused outside userspace and do not appear to be associated with either any notable work of fiction or any real or historical country.

Omphalographer (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   23:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Out of scope: a fourth set to finish the job (for now). As previously, all of the flags included in this nomination are unused outside userspace and do not appear to be associated with either any notable work of fiction or any real or historical country.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 07:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dummy edit --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio (c) landesarchiv-bw.de M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but who owns it? The mugshot photographer?
And what about personality rights? I think we can safely assume that this picture was taken against her will. --2003:C0:8F10:A100:A476:A5D8:2034:6E85 21:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We honor Holocaust victims by preserving their images. We host over 1,000 Holocaust images, all taken against their will. Once again, we honor Holocaust victims by preserving their images.
 Comment Maybe some type of PD-Gov. Post-mortal personality rights shouldn't be an issue since this person died in 1939. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • EU copyright law classifies it as an "anonymous" image. --RAN (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep (pinging Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )) The archive indeed holds the copyright - Landesarchiv BW materials are either PD due to age or other reason, and if not, they have all usage rights and allow usage under a CC licence.

Some of the digitized archive records in the finding aid system of the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg are still subject to copyright protection, some are exempt from copyright protection as official works, and some are in the public domain. Where they are protected by copyright, the State Archives hold the corresponding exploitation rights and grant a Creative Commons CC-BY license.

They require the archive signature (E 356 i Bü 2375) to be cited however, which is not the case here and should be added. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong file that matches the description was selected for upload, please remove it immediately to free the name Олексій Непота (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential copyright violation. Low resolution and lack of EXIF data. COM:VRT is necessary. S8321414 (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by A.Atig as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Reason Copyright conflit Uploaded in 2015, in use. Yann (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor doesn't own the copywright https://www.ola.org/en/members/all/kathryn-mcgarry Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Cloventt as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image not released under an open license by author, see [[File talk:TePaeChristchurch.jpg|talk page]].|source=https://lightforge.co.nz/portfolio/te-pae-christchurch-convention-centre/ Yann (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jsummers9024 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

{{Wrong license}}

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virgil Hawkins Portrait c 1960s.jpg is labeled Public Domain by the State Library and Archives of Florida [2]  Keep
File:Virgil D. Hawkins.jpg also labeled Public Domain by the State Library and Archives of Florida [3]  Keep
File:Lake County Training School Faculty.jpg is from 1925, per the caption, making {{PD-US-expired}} likely.  Keep
File:Carver Heights High School.jpg unlikely to be older than 1954, making a PD claim unlikely.  Delete
Where appropriate, the file information should be corrected and the files kept. — Tcr25 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per above and including File:Carver Heights High School.jpg which required copyright registration and display of the copyright symbol up until 1989.

Juan José Marín, creator of the statue, died in 1967. Argentina has the death+70 years rule, so it's not PD in Argentina yet. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this many years ago, without considering who was the creator of the statue and if it was in PD to begin with (back then I thought that taking the photo myself was enough). I have looked for the info but couldn't find the creator. Better to err on the side of caution and delete it. Cambalachero (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD in Argentina at the URAA date (1996) Cambalachero (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. The uploader, who claims to be its author, was not born when this picture was taken. Stephen V. Russell, the son of the subject of this photo, was born in 1949. The Pittsburgh Pirates last wore a uniform like the one pictured here in 1946. Almost all of the other photos uploaded by Mr. Russell are also very suspect but I'll have to go through them one-by-one. He's unfortunately no longer alive to confirm or deny his authorship of any of these photos either. Denniscabrams (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo was not free on the URAA date (1996) Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gereksiz Efe Tahir 52 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gereksiz Efe Tahir 52 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


borderline TOO case. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted cover of book too substantial for de minimis. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



May 7

[edit]

Menotti

[edit]

Several images of César Luis Menotti were not free in Argentina on the URAA date and may not be hosted on Commons --Cambalachero (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible that Marie-Adélaïde Baubry-Vaillant made this work, since she died in 1899 [4]. Le Petit Chat (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that’s true! So the underlying reference is incorrect. One of two things must be true: the painter is not the creator of this pastel, or the sitter was not the person claimed to be photographed in 1926. If the first is true, the sitter statement must be clarified with the issue and the file doesn’t need to be deleted, because it’s still of value as a PD example of the artist’s work. If the second is true, then the work is by an unknown pastellist of the 1920s who may easily be in the public domain by now. Since Sotheby’s is the source, I am inclined to think the artist is indeed correct, but that’s just my opinion. Feel free to delete it if you feel strongly about it, because I don’t. Jane023 (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So weird, I think it's most definitely a portrait of Prince Vinh Thuy. Then it should be the second case, by an unnamed painter from the 1920s. In my opinion it should not be deleted now. 源義信 (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's so interesting! Thanks for looking into it. It would be nice to have a photo of Prince Vinh Thuy or any other pastel by this artist for his circle. The more you think about this issue, the more questions arise about the way it was made. Having it around does help. I believe more eyes will help solve the question over time. It's possible that the artist had a student or other follower who imitated her style. Jane023 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. It seems that the logo is not enough old. Taivo (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yin and yang symbol is even geometrical figure, it is much more simple. In my opinion fleur de lis is in public domain not because it is simple but because it is centuries old and in PD due to age. Taivo (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A cross and a shield aren't centuries old too? That's a rhetorical question by the way. The Dominican Cross (the particular style of cross used here) has been used by the order for about 800 years. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a link to show that, and I withdraw the request. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have overestimated with 800 years (that is how long the Dominicans have been around). The first clearly documented use is from the 1500s, but this article suggests that it probably predates this within the Spanish branch of the Dominicans. The cross flory and gyron were apparently important heraldry symbols in Spain at the time. It became a universal symbol of the Dominicans in the 1800s: https://www.dominicanajournal.org/wp-content/files/old-journal-archive/vol14/no1/dominicanav14n1coatarmstheorderpreachers.pdf IronGargoyle (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context-less, source-less logo, probably (as stated in the description) own work. Therefore this is uneducational. Janhrach (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: as for the page on mlwiki that uses this file, it was added to it by the author of this file with the claim it is "official". Either this logo is official and therefore a copyright violation (which is doubtful, since the image contains the name of its author) or it is fictitious. In both cases, it should be deleted. Janhrach (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is not only a ‘fake’ SVG which is not actually scalable, it does not even appear to depict the typeface it claims to, because Espy Sans is a bitmap pixel font but the graphic clearly shows a raster rendering of a vector font file Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the file in CorelDraw and exported it (I thought) as an svg file. How can I self-test whether such a file is scalable and not raster? This is the first time I've created and uploaded a graphic. I will redo it as necessary. Elevedevie (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

68.37.120.43 23:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artist died 1936, so this will have a US copyright until at least 1/1/2027 .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is part of the collection of a public Swedish museum and the assumption is therefore not valid. When using this file, photographer and museum (Norrköpings konstmuseum) will however need to be mantioned. 2001:1BA8:1600:FE00:C1AA:8B6A:7DAD:4E6B 23:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The painting was uploaded before 2012 so the URAA template is completely valid and is public domain in Sweden. DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

وضعت صورة خاطئة Ilyasop (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyviol from https://arcivescovo.diocesiudine.it/stemma-dellarcivescovo-riccardo-lamba/ . Antonio1952 (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recorte pescadería 200.39.139.21 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y? Cv, G10. No escuchan a los IP? 200.39.139.21 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1963, Achim ya era bibliotecario. Trabajo propio? 200.39.139.21 21:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

[edit]

Appears to be taken from https://www.digando.com/vermieter/kuhn-baumaschinen but I am not 100% sure whether the Commons version pre or post dates the web version. This means I am opening a full discussion rather than tagging it as a copyvio. COM:PCP applies. Even though there are full camera details I believe formal permission shoudl be given via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Template:Subst : delete3[reply]

Unfortunately source says "Scopes: Information and education only" so these photos cannot be licensed under CC.

https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/copyright states: Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices) ...

// sikander { talk } 🦖 14:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that such a limitation violates the law of the European Commission, and is therefore not applicable, because of the rationale I laid out in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EC-Audiovisual Center (which, I will note, was accepted by the closer). I will add that that same copyright page, after the aforementioned discussion occured, has been updated to state that "The audiovisual material (still images, moving images and sound sequences) owned by the EU and made available on the website of the Audiovisual Service of the European Commission is subject to the Commission’s reuse policy, set out by the Commission Decision of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents," which explicitly prohibits the limitations mentioned above. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image was not solely created by NASA, so PD can't be presumed here. The source page has no evidence of it being under a free license either. 179.221.200.5 17:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Magog the Ogre as no license (No license since)

It does have a license for the US, but not for Ireland. Circa 1910s photo, could be public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Template:PD-Ireland-anon CeltBrowne (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof this was published anonymously? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same photo can be found (indirectly) on the official website of the National Library of Ireland here. They date the image to 1911. They are unable to attribute a photographer to the image.
If an academic authority as high as the NLI cannot identify a photographer, I think it's reasonable to assume it was published anonymously. NLI notes the version they have was amongst photographs found in the collection of Arthur Griffith. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The software in this screenshot is freely licensed. Omphalographer (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under which license? Probably not the CC-BY-SA used here, is a correction of the license needed? Otherwise, it could maybe be argued that everything in this screenshot is below the threshold of originality. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was included in a deletion request by User:PseudoSkull in 2023 but without adding the DR template to the file, and not addressed by the closing admin User:Ellywa who deleted the Syldavia flags. This case is different from the Syldavia flag, as this purported "Bordurian symbol" apparently wasn't designed by Hergé for the Tintin comics but is the uploader's own invention as "a possible Bordurian symbol based on the Nazi German Eagle", per the file's description. As I commented in the previous deletion discussion, I think that it is therefore misleading, not educationally useful and out of scope. This particular file is not in use in any Wikimedia project at the time of nomination. Unfortunately, there's also an SVG version File:Borduria-shield.svg which is in use in three projects and which we therefore, if we apply COM:INUSE strictly, can't delete. It's an example of the dangers of such inventions, however, if we look at es:El cetro de Ottokar and tr:Bordurya, where the symbol is unquestioningly used as if it were part of Hergé's work; as if it were appearing in King Ottokar's Sceptre, which it is not. The third use is in a German Wikinews article where it's used as an example of a "not Nazi, but Nazi-like symbol", so this seems like a legitimate use - maybe we could remove the file from the Spanish and Turkish articles where it's mistakenly used, and rename it to something like "fictional Nazi-like symbol" for uses such as in Wikinews, to avoid confusion in the future...? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 9-18

[edit]
(Page was too large: Continued in Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05b)

May 19-24

[edit]
(Page was too large: Continued in Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05c)

May 25-28

[edit]
(Page was too large: Continued in Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05d)

May 29-31

[edit]
(Page was too large: Continued in Commons:Deletion requests/2024/05e)