Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Other speedy deletions

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 in Category:Other speedy deletions

Originally tagged speedy by Silent Wind of Doom with the rationale: "Images of sports uniforms have been ruled fair use as per this discussion."

The images appear to be original works, but derivative of the actual uniforms worn by the players. Some of these uniform designs appear to consist solely of common property shapes (regular clothing and simple geometry), colors, and text. Others may have more complicated designs and should be considered for deletion.

Guanaco (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Deletion requests look so different on Commons than the main site.
I was notified about a discussion happening there about my uniform images. A recent (at the time) U.S. Supreme Court decision, namely on the case Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, the design elements of a uniform are subject to copyright. As such, the designs of these uniforms are under copyright by their teams, their leagues, and the various manufacturers, whether it be Majestic, Reebok, or New Era.
The discussion came to the consensus of properly licensing uniform images as non-free sports uniforms with rationale and to remove them from Commons. As someone disrupted the ordered file names for the uniforms, and to be more precise, I reuploaded the files under new names, properly licensed them, and tagged the Commons images for deletion as per the discussion ruling them non-free. The ones that weren't moved have already been speedy deleted under request of creator. --Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Silent Wind of Doom: The decision about Commons images has to be made on Commons, as this wiki is autonomous. It may be more expedient to standardize and host local copies on English Wikipedia as fair use. However on Commons, we should follow the Supreme Court's ruling and apply the test to each image: "[A] feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated." The court did not address whether they met the threshold of originality, so we can evaluate these in the manner of simple vs. complex logos. Guanaco (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Silent Wind of Doom, you seem to misunderstand how copyright works. For a picture of a uniform, there are two copyrights:
    1. The copyright of the design of the uniform. However, per COM:TOO, some minimal originality is required, and if the design is too simple, then the design is not protected by copyright and so pictures of those designs can be posted to Commons and shouldn't be listed as unfree on English Wikipedia. The designs listed in this deletion request look very simple, although it could be debated that a few of them maybe are sufficiently complex.
    2. The copyright of the picture itself. The person who makes a drawing of a uniform needs to choose a free licence for his contribution to the image. This is the case even if the design of the uniform is copyrighted, and images which are uploaded to English Wikipedia without a free licence chosen by the artist get deleted per w:WP:FREER. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Kept: none of the uniforms here strike me as above the COM:TOO. Just fancy text, plain colors and a stripe or two. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2018 (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 in Category:Other speedy deletions

Out of scope pictures.

Arthur Crbz (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Why was my speedy deletion request under criterion G7 rejected? I don't appreciate you creating such additional work for our fellow users and administrators. Please speedy delete them as requested and take them out of this deletion request. Nemo 08:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Speedy delete, COM:CSD #G7 as Nemo_bis requested it on behalf of the bot AnankeBot (talk · contribs). If specific images deemed free, then undeletion can be requested in the future. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2019 (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 in Category:Other speedy deletions

This file was initially tagged by BrunoBernardino as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: <G7> The limit has been way past 7 days, not eligible for speedy.

1989 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --JuTa 11:15, 21 July 2019 (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.
Fake SVGs by Kontrollstelle Kundl

This file was initially tagged by Kontrollstellekundl as Speedy (sla) and the most recent rationale was: Outdated maps of districts of Styria, Fake SVGs by Kontrollstelle Kundl

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  •  Keep kein Löschgrund erkennbar --Ralf Roletschek 16:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus. --ƏXPLICIT 00:39, 20 January 2021 (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 nominated for speedy deletion by Davey2010

These files were initially tagged by Davey2010 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: author req

Moved to DR as G7 doesn't apply to files older than a week.

CptViraj (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 21:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Kept 3 as requested. --Minoraxtalk 07:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Files nominated as speedy delete by Sturm
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 Imagesdomainepublic

Uploader request well after 7 days, all unused. To be clear, I am not the uploader, I just converted to DR after the uploader tagged for speedy deletion.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  •  Keep Why would we want to delete beautiful PD flower pictures? Some of these images are quite good and potentially usable as thumbnails in articles. If you'd like to request the deletion of specific images you think are not useful, please do that, but I definitely oppose the wholesale deletion of all of these images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2023 (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.

User:Dairokkan9's COM:CSD#G7 requests

Speedy deletion was requested per COM:CSD#G7, but these are too old, so converting to DR.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 13 July 2023 (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 in Category:Other speedy deletions

Out of scope as excluded educational content.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that I converted these from speedy deletion nominations by Omphalographer as I felt that COM:CSD#G1 didn't apply to any of them, and no speedy criterion applied to most of them. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
All of these files are Wikipedia pages printed to PDF, then uploaded to Commons. My take is that they're "redundant content [...] used for testing" (CSD G1) - they're redundant to the Wikipedia pages they were printed from, and they were most likely created as a result of the user messing around with the "download as PDF" and "upload file" sidebar links, rather than as a deliberate process. I can certainly send these to DR in the future if that'd be preferred. Omphalographer (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 07:18, 26 June 2023 (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 in Category:Other speedy deletions

Converted from speedy deletion requests. These are all a few-month-old 20px by 20px images, requested for deletion by the author, and in use on template pages created by the author. These logos are so low-resolution to prevent their educational use, and are therefore out of COM:SCOPE, so they should be deleted.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete all. These are all resized versions of images which are, in many cases, non-free, e.g. File:AGI-VN.png is a tiny version of vi:File:Logo tỉnh An Giang.svg which is used under a claim of fair use. Omphalographer (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2023 (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 in Category:Other speedy deletions

Converted from User:Atcovi's speedy request. Too old for COM:CSD#G7, reason for deletion?

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not familiar with Commons all too well, so I didn't realize there was a time limit to G7. I simply want these audio clips to be deleted because the "Mujawwad" recitations are in use and these audio clips are not avaliable on any page (therefore serving no purpose). -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Not being currently in use is not a deletion reason. Atcovi, I assume you uploaded these clips because the recitation is of high quality. Do you now think it is not of high quality? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
    No, I just believed the Mujawwad recitations were better to use rather than the Murattal recitations due to the Tajweeed employed. But if not in use & my desire for these clips to be deleted is not a valid reason, then I have no problem revoking my request and leaving them to be. -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I think the more freely-available good examples of recitation we have, the better. However, you always have the right to request courtesy deletions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 18:04, 2 January 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 in Category:Other speedy deletions

Nominated G7 by uploader, but ineligible due to age. These are high quality, hand drawn works and could be within scope, so kicking them to DR.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Speedy delete all because those variants are unnecessary. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 10:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC); edited: 10:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleted: These are high quality works, I commend the uploader for their artistry, courtesy deletion is granted. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sky logos

Moved to: Commons:Deletion requests/Sky logos

Manchesterunited1234 uploads

Moved to: Commons:Deletion requests/Manchesterunited1234 uploads
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 in Category:Other speedy deletions

This file was initially tagged by ~2026-24453-67 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: Not PD in the US; as of the URAA date, only works from 1945 or before were public domain in China.

JaydenChao (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

 Strong oppose NOT clear Copyvio JaydenChao (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Per COM:URAA, each file must be evaluated individually; a blanket deletion of the category is inappropriate. JaydenChao (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hu and Liu 1955.jpg Johnj1995 (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

 Strong oppose PD-China. They are government works, therefor PD-author. The Chinese government made the works. They gave up their rights after 50 years using law. PD-Author. --維基小霸王 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Category:URAA-related deletion requests/deleted
 Strong oppose agree with User:JaydenChao and User:維基小霸王. PD-Author.--Lvhis (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment Please refer this discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Standard portraits of the ten Marshals and the conclusion for most of files there was "kept". Administrator Abzeronow close that discussion stating "Most of them as being grandfathered as pre-March 2012 uploads. ". Here most of the files may also be in the same situation if they were pre-March 2012 uploads and should be kept. Lvhis (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

 Deleted. All the files are free from copyright in China, but protected with copyright in USA per URAA. Taivo (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Undelete in 2047

Undeleted File:Long march Mao.jpg and File:Soong, Mao, Zhou, Chen and Zhang.jpg. JaydenChao (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)