Wikimore

18 May 2025

20 May 2025

Deletion requests on 19 May 2025

May 19

File:JAA Logo.png

Dubious educational value (COM:EDUSE) and/or copyright issues (COM:DW). There are no sources indicated for the design of this image, so it cannot be said at the moment to reliably depict the logo of this organisation. As it stands now, it's simply some artwork by a non-notable artist. And even if sources are made known, then it'll be a copyright-infringing derivative. I do not see a way how this image can be kept. Grand-Duc (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, there are no issues! There was no copyright to the image, because the country it belonged to, the Islamic Emirate of Rafah had no copyright law. Since the country was also not a signatory to the Berne convention, it's public domain in America. Happy editing! Castroonthemoon (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

yes, but what is the source? JaxsonR (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep - i found the source for the photo, no copyright that i know of. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8203239.stm JaxsonR (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @JaxsonR. It may behoove you to know that it's the nominating party's opinion that there needs to be sources, and not an actual reason for deletion, as I have learned from the discussion where they're trying to delete my uploads Castroonthemoon (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete, the Arabic Wikipedia declares it a "fair use" logo. If the uploader need it to illustrate articles on the English Wikipedia, upload it there. Fair use, however, is not permitted on Commons. It should be removed from Commons. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 02:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
There is obviously more than just this logo in that version, also just because someone claimed it is fair use doesn't mean it is.. $999$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that "Arabic Wikipedia" doesn't declare the image fair use, the person who uploaded it did, which as @999real pointed out, doesn't mean that it's actually fair use Castroonthemoon (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Nevertheless, references are always very helpful, especially when it comes to derivative works, e.g. Store norske leksikon. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 03:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
within the article you linked, it lists the image as public domain Castroonthemoon (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The article actually names it that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean the author's information is correct. However, if the file is kept by an admin, you can add this link as a source to the file. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The logo is used here again, but without further credit. However, the page does have a copyright notice at the bottom. It would probably be best if you simply list the source you used for the image. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
...and the copyright in question relates to the source article being published by Hossam Al-Haddad, you're 0 - 3 on this argument. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Just cite your source instead of constantly coming up with counterarguments. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 06:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The fact that Hossam Al-Haddad does not cite any image sources in his article is unfortunately a widespread practice on the Internet and unless otherwise stated, the copyright notice also refers to the image material used. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 06:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
In your original comment, The logo is used here again, but without further credit. However, the page does have a copyright notice at the bottom you are clearly implying that the copyright on the page extends to the image, not Hossam Al-Haddad's article, and are trying to hedge your argument. Castroonthemoon (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Wrong. If a page has a copyright notice, it applies to all of its content, including text and images. However, in this case, we're not interested in the author's text, only the image, because ultimately, the issue is its deletion. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ziv I seriously hope you are not trying to argue that "islamist-movements.com" is the creator of this logo or that they own a copyright on it because they have a copyright notice on their page..

@Modern primat Why are you 2 ignoring that @Castroonthemoon said above the source is https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8203239.stm. The version uploaded in Commons is much higher quality than any other version I could find so I think this is a recreation. $999$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 14:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@999real, i do not try anything. As long as the uploader does not disclose his source, it can be assumed that it is protected by copyright. The link was posted by @JaxsonR, an account with 4 edits and interestingly, who immediately found this deletion request and who uploaded a duplicate logo to one @Castroonthemoon uploaded. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
i came from the JAA and Islamic Emirate of rafah page, I was adding the logo to it. JaxsonR (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

there is no source, I made the image Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

are you trying to say that I'm an alt of this guy? JaxsonR (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
that's exactly what @Ziv was implying Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

no source, no juice Delete modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 07:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I made the file, there is no source Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The image of the Arabic Wikipedia does not say why it is a fair use file which means it is not the same because of its background, it also has errors like the rifle in the Arabic Wikipedia version has lighting and shadow which in this file is only black and white, the swords and their outline are thick and in the word "الله" the Shaddah (هِّ) has been simplified to a point and the Dagger alif (ـٰ) does not exist Farcazo (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:KSaSLogo.png

Possible infringing derivatives. The assault rifle silhouettes are too complex to still be seen as "simple" per COM:TOO, as is the posterized building roof. Furthermore, I wonder how this could be a PD-Irak work, none of the criteria named in the template seem to be applicable for an insignia of an organisation (Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada) founded in 2013 and apparently being a non-state violent actor. That would negate being an official insignia. Grand-Duc (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

it falls under public domain per the Iraqi Article 6 of Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright, which states that official documents are exempt from copyright (for which flags fall into this category; which is just one of the reasons why the national flag of Iraq can't be copywritten). The militia for which the flag belongs to is apart of the Popular Mobilization Forces, which legally is apart of the Iraqi Armed Forces, meaning that Article 6 extends to this militia. It also should be mentioned that Iraq is a non-signatory to the Berne convention, meaning that works are in the public domain in other countries worldwide! Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2025 (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.

File:Deai Bridge 20241027 (1).jpg

This file was initially tagged by %USER% as no source Krd 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Kept: insufficient reason for deletion, no found elsewhere using Google Lens. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Deai Bridge 20241027 (1).jpg

This file was initially tagged by 115.30.193.97 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 05:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon (talk · contribs)

Recent and complex design. No evidence of a free license or public domain status.

Yann (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll insert some additional infos here. Before Yann went and opened a mass DR, I did nominate several files from the set above singly. The DR rationales are closely related to this process here:

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

don't forget Commons:Deletion requests/File:Military Council for the Liberation of Syria.png, for which Yann errantly deleted as well Castroonthemoon (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

per @Jmabel on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Request for broader copyright- and scope-related scrutiny of uploads from user:Castroonthemoon, if the files appear to be problematic, nominate them for deletion (please, not all at once), starting with the ones you think are most likely to be problematic. Castroonthemoon (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Castroonthemoon: I suggest you start with the half dozen you can most easily explain in respect of why they are PD or legitimately free-licensed. If those turn out to be largely "keeps", then this DR was too general and we'd take them up in smaller batches. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

- File:Platform the world anti imperialist platform.png is PD per their website

- File:WAP FLAG.png is PD, as it is an extract from the file above (File:Platform the world anti imperialist platform.png), which is PD per their website

- File:PSE 17 Ecuador.png is PD per COM:TOO Andean Community and COM:TOO US

- File:Baqir Brigade Infobox Flag.png is Fake insignia created for Category:Infobox flags

- File:PopularRevolutionaryArmyFlag.png As Mexico is a permenant observer of the Wikipedia:Andean Community , this image is PD per COM:TOO Andean Community and COM:TOO US

- File:PopularRevolutionaryArmy.png is an extract from the file above, and thus PD per COM:TOO Andean Community and COM:TOO US

- File:Algerian Municipal Guard.png is public domain, as it is the insignia of the Wikipedia:Garde communale, which was created as an auxiliary force to the Wikipedia:Algerian People's National Army, and is thus public domain under articles 9 and 11 of Algerian copyright law Ordinance No. 03-05 of 19

- File:CitizensParty1980.png falls under PD-textlogo and COM:TOO US

- File:Kata'ib Jund al-Imam Flag.png, File:Kata'ib Jund al-Imam Logo.png, File:KSaSFlag.png, File:Kataib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam Logo.png, and File:File:Kataib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam Logo.flag All fall under PD in Iraq, as Article 6 of the Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright states that "official documents such as texts of laws and regulations, international agreements, judicial rulings and other official documents" are not protected by copyright; the respective groups that these files are from are all party to the Wikipedia:Popular Mobilization Forces, which as per Iraqi law states, is apart of the Iraqi armed forced, and thus is "subject to the supreme commander of the national armed forces and will no longer be affiliated to any political or social group"
Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that there are issues with your answers.

File:Platform the world anti imperialist platform.png and File:WAP FLAG.png may not be in the PD. It is true that the source states "The World Anti-Imperialist Joint Struggle (Flag) / The materials for the joint struggle. You are allowed to use and print the files freely.", but on the footer of the page, there's this: "© The World Anti-imperialist Platform by wap21.org". Instead of reading that as a "Media is released in the public domain", it's more precise to see it as {{Copyrighted free use}} (it's certainly not a CC-Zero statement as given on the "platform" file). This is a technicality that do not change our ability to host the media, yes, but we should aim for the maximum of precision in licensing statements.
File:PSE 17 Ecuador.png, File:PopularRevolutionaryArmyFlag.png and everything where you refer to COM:TOO Andean Community: if you look a bit higher on the page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Andean Community, then you see that this Andean Community is a customs union. It's IMHO way too far-fetched to say that material related to national entities, like the Partido Socialista del Ecuador, originates from the customs union. Even for the European Union, a supranational political and economic union and hence much more integrated than a simple customs union, the realm of copyright laws remains within the nations which are part of this union. So, for File:PSE 17 Ecuador.png, the relevant guideline is Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ecuador and for File:PopularRevolutionaryArmyFlag.png, it is COM:CRT/Mexico. Neither states that these graphics may be PD.
File:CitizensParty1980.png: definitively not {{PD-Textlogo}} - the tree shape is certainly too complex.
File:Algerian Municipal Guard.png: again, the shape of Algeria is NOT simple, so not PD. Furthermore, you referenced and linked the Algerian copyright law. The article 11 states: "Les lois et règlements, les décisions et les actes administratifs des organes de l’État et des collectivités locales, les décisions de justice et la traduction officielle de ces textes ne sont pas soumises à la protection des droits d’auteur prévue par la présente ordonnance." This is clearly only related to textual works (laws, court rulings, ordinances), not graphic ones. Then, you referenced article 9: "Les œuvres de l’État rendues licitement accessibles au public peuvent être librement utilisées à des fins non lucratives, sous réserve du respect de l’intégrité de l’œuvre et de l’indication de la source." That's totally not public domain! You can freely use state-produced works which are legally made available under certain conditions: attribution, preserving the integrity of the work (that may be a no derivative clause, but could also mean to not deface any work) and using it for non-commercial ends. Any and every one of these conditions make a work unfit for Commons.
Your Irak-related statement hinges upon the theory that flags and logos of militias are "official documents". That is debatable, especially in the light of COM:FLAG, respectively COM:Coat of arms. I do not think that they can be kept on Commons.

You are certainly brash in your understanding of copyright situations, without caring for important and relevant details... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Under your interpretation of the world, nothing seems to be Public Domain. In this world, to be overly literal is a profound weakness. None of your counterarguments seem to make any sense, either.

- File:Platform the world anti imperialist platform.png and File:WAP FLAG.png absolutely is public domain; the makers of this material plainly, and blatantly state that the material may be used freely. The phrase on the source website is unambiguous: "You are allowed to use and print the files freely." This constitutes an affirmative license, granting the public unrestricted rights to use and reproduce the files: satisfying the requirements for free use under Commons policy. The presence of a © symbol in the website footer is standard practice on modern websites and does not negate a clearly stated license placed within the content itself. This isn't Kafka, they don't have to file a form just for your approval. Commons does not require formal legal declarations when the rights holder’s intent is clear and unambiguous as it is here. Insisting on a CC0 template when a plain-language release is given risks imposing an unnecessary burden on small organizations or non-native English speakers.

- File:PSE 17 Ecuador.png and File:PopularRevolutionaryArmyFlag.png are public domain, despite your conjecture about customs unions and the EU. You've proven to me that you have not read COM:TOO Andean Community, The files are appropriately hosted under the logic supported by COM:TOO Andean Community. it doesn't matter that the Andean Community is a customs union, they have issued rulings on copyright that have been respected and followed, as the Tribunal de Justicia has jurisdiction over copyright issues that affect member states, with the COM:TOO Andean Community page even giving an example of a ruling: "The logo for Lost Enterprises, which incorporated a stylized design of the planet Saturn was created and copyrighted in US (VAU586282), but was ruled below TOO in AC countries per 177-IP-2016 point 6.1 and Casación 1592 by Tribunal of Justice of Peru.". This shows that Andean Community member states can and do apply TOO standards derived from supranational rulings. Once again, you are ignoring that Mexico is party to the Andean Community as a permanent observer; a star with letter and a red square with letters is much less complex than the Lost Enterprises logo, which depicts the planet of Saturn, which by your own logic, is "too complex", as you don't seem to differentiate between the actual real simplicity of shapes and what they represent.

- File:CitizensParty1980.png absolutely falls under COM:PD-text logo. It's Clearly simple, and clearly under the threshold of COM:TOO. The PD-textlogo documentation explicitly covers "simple geometric shapes," not only rectangles or circles but any basic silhouette lacking creative embellishment. The graphic of a tree is nothing more than a filled outline with no artistic detail, shading, or unique styling beyond its bare outline. As such, it "does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection." The image, a plain silhouette, is analogous to the many trivial logos singled out as non-protectable. Copyright requires some exercise of free and creative choices: color gradients, distinctive typography, intricate ornamentation, or a unique arrangement of elements. The the graphic of a tree: it’s a single-shape silhouette and could be reproduced mechanically from any stencil. That mechanical only application of a basic form is precisely why such works will not be considered original creation. Similar silhouette-style logos, including trees and other natural elements, have routinely been deemed non-copyrightable by the U.S. Copyright Office unless they contain expressive detail per USCO Compendium § 906.4. Once again you are missing the point on text-logo with your literalist interpretation. The bar for originality is not met by simply representing a recognizable object, what matters is how originally it is rendered. In this case, the representation is functional, minimal, and purely symbolic. This image does not exhibit the type of creative authorship that copyright protects.

- File:Algerian Municipal Guard.png is public domain, spamming French doesn't mean that you have any actual argument. You also seem to miss the mark on how images through law work. When East and West Germany re-united, did the Bundestag hold up a piece of paper with the German flag and vote yay or nay on it? No! Article 22 of the German constitution, the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, states: "The federal flag shall be black, red and gold." Images are promogulated through law, which per your own block of French text states, (Article 11) "Laws and regulations, decisions and administrative acts of state bodies and local authorities, court decisions and the official translation of these texts are not subject to copyright protection provided for by this Ordinance.". The emblem of the Algerian Municipal Guard is precisely that: an official insignia of a state body, used in the course of government functions and law enforcement. As with many state symbols, such emblems are created, adopted, and used as part of administrative acts or state authority, and thus fall under the exclusions outlined in Article 11. Article 9 even unambiguously and plainly states: "State works made lawfully accessible to the public may be freely used for non-profit purposes, subject to respect for the integrity of the work and indication of the source.", for which File:Algerian Municipal Guard.png follows these guidelines. You argue that Article 9 prevents this from being public domain. In fact, it complements Article 11 by confirming that other works produced by the state (i.e not embedded in laws or decrees) may still be freely used for non-commercial purposes, for with attribution and integrity preserved

- File:Kata'ib Jund al-Imam Flag.png, File:Kata'ib Jund al-Imam Logo.png, File:KSaSFlag.png, File:Kataib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam Logo.png, and File:Kataib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam Flag.png Are still public domain and official documents of the Iraqi Armed Forces, These images are not simply "militia symbols"; they are emblems of units under the Popular Mobilization Forces. Because they are apart of the Popular Mobilization Forces, which again per Law No. 40 of 2016, incorporated the PMF into the state apparatus; where, again, per Article 6 of the Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright states that "official documents such as texts of laws and regulations, international agreements, judicial rulings and other official documents" are not protected by copyright law. COM:FLAG and COM:Coat of arms are guidelines for evaluating whether a flag or insignia is copyrighted under the relevant national law. Iraqi law provides a clear legal exemption for official government materials. There is no requirement in the law that the "document" must be textual only; the clause "other official documents" allows for non-textual, symbolic materials such as flags, logos, and insignia when they are issued or used by the state. Since the PMF is recognized as an official part of the Iraqi Armed Forces, its component brigades carry unique emblems for identification: those symbols are, by law and function, part of the official record of state activity and exempt from copyright.
Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

There's still a lot of wrong in your answer.

First, "public domain" is a technical term which has solid legal definitions around the world - we're basing Commons rules on them. You can get a media into public domain by law (-> PD-USGov!), by choice (not in all countries, Germany does not allow the voiding of one's moral author rights, for instance - you're only able to grant an unlimited and unconditional usage right) or by age (-> PD-Old!), when copyright terms expire. There's a notable difference between "pubic domain" and things like CC-Zero or {{Copyrighted free use}}: the status "public domain", especially the one that is due to the age of the creation, cannot be retracted, it's irreversible. But any other grant of usage rights is reversible, or at least, one can stop distributing his imagery under any given condition (with the caveat of viral "share-alike" licenses, where you do not have to rely on a given licensor). If the administrators of the homepage showing File:Platform the world anti imperialist platform.png decide tomorrow to revoke their offering of "You are allowed to use and print the files freely.", they're totally free to do so under copyright laws. While they won't be able to prohibit extant uses of their creation, no new usage rights would be granted.
Second, about your argument around "File:PSE 17 Ecuador.png": indeed, the Court of Justice of the Andean Community set a lower bar for a TOO threshold, where it is posited that works depicting common knowledge (a representation of Saturn as a sphere with rings, in that case) cannot be claimed as creative. How the outlines of the hand and the flames are drawn is a human creative act and not common knowledge, so it likely warrants copyright protection.
Third, about "File:CitizensParty1980.png": the choices of how the outline of the coniferous tree are produced make for a complex work. It goes way beyond a simple assortment of geometric shapes (squares, rectangles, circles, arcs, symmetric stars...). The creativity warranting a copyright lies in the simplification, in how to depict a recognisable tree only with colour blotches.
Fourth, to "File:Algerian Municipal Guard.png": I did not spam French, LOL, I only quoted the terms in a official language of Algeria I'm more proficient in than English. And you trapped yourself with your example of the German reunification. The German Democratic Republic ceased to exist when it joined the area ruled by the Grundgesetz, the German Federal Republic constitution. The flag was indeed voted on in 1949, when the Grundgesetz was written and adopted by the Parlamentarischer Rat in (and further laws and bylaws about flag data were passed later on). But neither contain a concise description like reference colours (the colour design itself is only a recommendation by the government in 1999, see Flag of Germany#Design), so the German flag itself is protected by laws, but not published by law. Anyway, you've got to demonstrate with court rulings or law texts that images fall among the categories of works described in the Algerian texts. Per COM:PRP, it makes more sense to assume a similar case with this imagery as with stamps in Germany, see Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps. This in only logical. Where the texts of laws, regulations, administrative decisions and so on must be made known and distributed for the public, so that the foundations of the workings of the state can be observed and respected by the population, imagery in general does not serve this purpose.
It would be your duty to provide a concise definition of "official documents" in Irak and if these can be images. Otherwise, COM:PRP would mandate a deletion, again.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

- First, per File:Platform the world anti imperialist platform.png; Commons accommodates both true public domain works and irrevocable, unconditional free‐use grants that are functionally equivalent to public domain. In the case of this file, The creator’s permission is perpetual and unrestricted. The website states, "You are allowed to use and print the files freely," there is no language limiting scope, duration, territory, or purpose. Under most copyright systems, an unconditional grant with no termination clause or language is fundamentally irrevocable for all practical purposes, it cannot be revoked retroactively to strip away already‐granted rights to copies in circulation. Commons policy recognizes PD‐release or self‐dedication with the same effect, Commons uses templates like {CC0} or {:PD-self} to tag works the author has released under an unconditional, irrevocable license. What matters is that the rights holder has granted all freedoms that PD entails: no restrictions on copying, no restrictions on commercial or noncommercial use, and no restrictions on derivatives. Hypothetical revocation does not undermine current grants. If the website administrators later change their site text, that change cannot claw back permissions for copies already lawfully published under the original grant. Commons hosts existing content under the terms in force at the time of upload, not under future what-ifs. Deleting now would punish a clear, good-faith release, as under Commons principle, once a rights holder clearly and unambiguously releases a work under free‐use terms, the file belongs here. Insisting on a formal CC0 button or government decree elevates form over substance and risks discarding legitimately free‐use material simply because it wasn’t wrapped in a specific template.

- Secondly, and again, per File:PSE 17 Ecuador.png, Minimal, generic shapes Are unprotectable. COM:TOO and the Andean Community ruling around the Saturn logo hinge on whether the work adds creative expression beyond a purely functional or universally understood form. File:PSE 17 Ecuador.png uses a silhouette of a hand and stylized flame shapes that are so geometric and iconic they function like traffic-sign pictograms. There is no shading, no texture, no intricate line work, no perspective, and no unique styling that would elevate it above a de minimis representation. Referring back to the Lost Enterprises ruling, the Tribunal found a simple ringed sphere (Saturn) non-protectable because it’s a "common fact" conveyed in a routine manner. A hand silhouette is at least as common and unoriginal as a sphere with rings; hands are among the most universally depicted forms in art since prehistoric cave paintings, and simplified flames are easily recognizable, classic pictorial symbols. COM:TOO states that symbols and logos whose visual elements consist only of simple geometric shapes or text are generally below the threshold of originality; The Tribunal’s own language in 177-IP-2016 pt. 6.1 confirms that even a multi-element design (sphere + rings) can be too trivial. File:PSE 17 Ecuador.png hand + flames are no more complex.

- Third of all, and once again, File:CitizensParty1980.png remains correctly tagged as PD-textlogo. Silhouettes of natural objects are often below TOO, as the guidelines explicitly cover simple geometric shapes or text, for which this flat silhouette lacking artistic detail, regardless of whether it represents a circle, star, or tree falls under. The tree here is a single-color outline with no internal detail, no shading, no texture, and no perspective; it functions exactly like a vector-drawn pictogram. Copyright protects creative authorship, not minimal functional depiction. The choice to use color blotches and triangular branch shapes is a standard simplification technique taught in basic logo design and clip art, which is not a distinctive artistic flourish. The U.S. Copyright Office Compendium notes that silhouettes comprised solely of filled shapes without stylized rendering or original arrangement are not copyrightable, as well as Common symbols and shapes... Well-known and commonly used symbols that contain a minimal amount of expression or are in the public domain, such as the peace symbol, gender symbols, or simple emoticons. Similar tree silhouettes and basic icons have been retained under PD-textlogo: such as File:Team Trees circle logo.svg, File:Dollar tree.png, File:GRAND TREE MUSASHIKOSUGI Logo.svg, File:Khan Academy Logo Old version 2015.jpg and File:PNP Palm tree.svg. The functional need for a political-party logo to clearly read as "tree" drives the design, the form is dictated by the idea it must convey, not by an exercise of creative authorship. COM:TOO clarifies that works dictated by function or idea, using only trivial variations of common shapes, remain below TOO.

- Fourth of all, you decided to drop 60 words of French in a conversation that was entirely being conducted in English. Quoting Algerian law directly in English makes the legal argument transparent and verifiable for everyone. Untranslated French passages only risk confusion without adding real legal weight. File:Algerian Municipal Guard.png is an official state symbol published by government decree and therefore falls under the public-domain exemption in Algerian law. Algerian Ordinance No. 03-05 (July 19, 2003), Article 11 excludes from copyright "laws and regulations, decisions and administrative acts of state bodies and local authorities." If you weren't aware, when the government issues a decree or ministerial order defining an emblem or badge, it is published in the official gazette with any required illustrations or technical drawings as annexes. Those illustrations are part of the administrative act itself and thus share its exempt status. The Algerian constitution defines the national flag and emblem and included its depiction as a binding annex. These images are universally treated as public domain under Article 11. File:Algerian Municipal Guard.png is likewise enacted and published; its graphic depiction is not a separate copyrighted work but part of the official act. Postal stamps or corporate logos are commercial products and are not published as part of a binding legal text, so they do not qualify for this exemption, by contrast, the File:Algerian Municipal Guard.png exercises legal authority; its publication is a public act, not a private design. Because File:Algerian Municipal Guard.png is published as an integral part of a state administrative act, it is exempt from copyright under Algerian law and must be treated as public domain.

- Fifth of all, again, per Article 6 of the Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright states that "official documents such as texts of laws and regulations, international agreements, judicial rulings and other official documents" are not protected by copyright law; The phrase "other official documents" is intentionally open-ended and follows a legal construction called ejusdem generis, meaning "of the same kind." Courts interpreting similar laws read the list not as exhaustive but as illustrative. If laws and regulations are included, so too are government-issued orders, decrees, and public symbols created by or for state institutions—such as logos and flags representing military units. In the case of the Popular Mobilization Forces, Law No. 40 of 2016 formally incorporates the PMF into the Iraqi Armed Forces. Therefore, insignia and flags of PMF brigades are no longer "private militia symbols"; they became official symbols of a branch of the Iraqi state. These emblems are used in state functions, military ceremonies, recruitment efforts, and internal publications, which unambiguously makes them, by definition and function, "official documents." Unless you can show that Iraq has adopted a legal doctrine barring visual works from this category, which is not evident in any official interpretation or commentary, the standard laid out in COM:PRP is already satisfied. This is not speculative, the insignia is state-issued, used in a government capacity, and falls within the legal exemptions of Iraq’s copyright law. The emblems and flags of PMF brigades are official state imagery, created under the authority of Iraq’s armed forces, and publicly disseminated as part of their official identity. As such, they meet the definition of "official documents" in both form and function and are therefore in the public domain under Iraqi law. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it, just because it's complex doesn't mean it's copyrighted. Farcazo (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Farcazo: Having a complex design over that country's TOO means it's copyrightable in that country. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Kataib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam, Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya & Algerian Municipal Guard look simple enough to me so kepp

Baqir Brigade was simplified to avoid copyright so strong keep

CitizensParty1980 depends on which tree has been used

for KTP Finland i am not sure but it at worst falls into the last category:

PopularRevolutionaryArmy, Al Ashtar Brigades and Badr Organization are detailed but are just altered versions of Hammer & Sickle and symbol of the IRCG which are alongside other parodies of the Hammer & Sickle regarded as free Braganza (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Lim Natee (talk · contribs)

photos of photos, not own work i believe.

modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 07:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

the original image is not mine. but, the photo that I took is mine. I have mentioned in the title of the image (personally owned by Muhammad TWH) which does contain the figure. what is the solution? should I re-upload? because, the image is indeed mine. because, I am the one who took the picture that is displayed in the museum Lim Natee (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

dear @Lim Natee, there is multiple images. i didnt understand which one you meant.

also for solution, please contact with COM:VRT and ask it in COM:Help desk. i hope you will find answers.

to admins: please

wait for this request. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 23:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

there are some pictures. but, those are all pictures that I took with my camera in the museum. I didn't upload the museum's files. are the photos that I took with my camera in the museum not my own work? I don't understand the reason yet. so that this doesn't happen again. so that it won't be included in the Deletion requests for the images I entered in the future. Lim Natee (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Zemen (talk · contribs)

No evidence that this flag is real. No results contained this flag when I searched for the KNRM in either language.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Österreichisches Olympisches Comité flag.svg

The file should be deleted because it uses a protected emblem (logo of the Austrian Olympic Committee) and this has not been released. NOC Austria (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Also including File:ÖOC-Logo 2025.svg. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The Olympic rings are not copyrightable. However, the design of the coat of arms might be. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mpodgurschii (talk · contribs)

Dubious claim of own work, most credited to Victor Sacaluic in exif, others have no exif, needs VRT to keep

Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Prof. dr hab. Marek Izydorek.jpg

Uploader request deletion Fallwee (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment Deletion was requested by the uploader shortly after upload but file is COM:INUSE at d:Q102165236. --Rosenzweig τ 14:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This photo will be replaced by a better one in the future. 153.19.32.201 06:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Cipher for best graduates of Smolny institute.jpg

Non-free photo of the 3D-object (PD itself), taken from third-party website. Own photo or photographer's permission required. Quick1984 (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Pylajuschije bezdny cover 1924.jpg

No evidence provided that the author (Мизернюк Михаил Яковлевич) died 70 or more years ago. Quick1984 (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Jung Lea in September 7, 2023.jpg

File:Jung Lea in September 7, 2023.jpg DaynneDarrylleDelosSantos (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

My own photograph was tagged for a copyright violation and marked for deletion. As I am the original creator of the image, this should be dismissed. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 10:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Guangzhou Metro logo.svg

This file was initially tagged by 御坂雪奈 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G4 Tim (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep per discussion in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2021-07#Guangzhou_Metro_logos. DO NOT waste community's time. --Tim (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Because it's not a simple graphic at all. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wcam,@Glrx,Come and express your opinion. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wcam,@Glrx,Isn't it absolutely agreed to delete it? Why don’t you dare come over? This is the same problem as the File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg picture. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Since File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg can be deleted, this complex picture can also be deleted. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep, Non bis in idem, Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2021-07#Guangzhou_Metro_logos already have a decison. This file is as simple enough as the OK examples in COM:TOO China,it is inappropriate to compare it with Fuzhou obviously.--Jacky Cheung (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This is nonsense. They all have texts, and they are not pictures with complicated compositions, so they are obviously suitable! 御坂雪奈 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep per above and previous UDR. Appears to be simple enough to be below COM:TOO China. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is it so simple? What is the definition? Aren't File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg simpler than this picture? 御坂雪奈 (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Please note that there are suddenly so many people expressing reservations here, they are most likely puppets. (Because File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg did not express reservations when discussing deletion, it is possible that the puppets were trying to keep these pictures. In fact, the problems of File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg are the same as these) 御坂雪奈 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the design and structure of these pictures are not simple: First, two lines are drawn. If it were really simple, it could be completed in one stroke. 2. The presence of Chinese characters adds to the complexity of the composition 御坂雪奈 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep. There are only two colours in this logo (including the texts), and the most "complex" components in this logo are Bézier curves with 4 control points and no reverse turn. That's simple enough. PÑēüḾôňïę1357 (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

If it is not a complex graphic design, it can be completed with just one stroke, but this picture already requires two strokes, so it cannot be considered simple at all. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, the design above has text, and the text is also included in the LOGO, which further increases the complexity of the image! 御坂雪奈 (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

This is classic POINTing. Please stop. --魔琴 (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all: Wikipedia's rules do not apply to Commons. Secondly, I now think that this is a picture with a complex composition. If its composition is not complicated, it can be completed in one stroke instead of taking more than one stroke. Another point is that the structure of the Chinese characters above has already increased the complexity of the picture. So my attitude is very clear, it must be deleted

Delete. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Amoy Metro logo.svg

This file was initially tagged by 御坂雪奈 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G4 Tim (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep per discussion in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Logos_of_rail_transport_companies_of_China. DO NOT waste community's time. --Tim (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep Regarding whether to trigger TOO China, this icon has reached a consensus in previous discussions.

SCJiang (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

But I think this is a complex picture. If it is not a complex picture, then the File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg picture is not a complex picture either.Because the structure of this picture is simpler than his picture. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Because it's not a simple graphic at all. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wcam,@Glrx,Come and express your opinion. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wcam,@Glrx,Isn't it absolutely agreed to delete it? Why don’t you dare come over? This is the same problem as the File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg picture. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Since File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg can be deleted, this complex picture can also be deleted. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep, Non bis in idem, Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Logos_of_rail_transport_companies_of_China already have a decison. This file is as simple enough as the OK examples in COM:TOO China,it is inappropriate to compare it with Fuzhou obviously.--Jacky Cheung (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This is nonsense. They all have texts, and they are not pictures with complicated compositions, so they are obviously suitable! 御坂雪奈 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep per above. Appears to be simple enough to be below COM:TOO China. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is it so simple? What is the definition? Aren't File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg simpler than this picture? 御坂雪奈 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Please note that there are suddenly so many people expressing reservations here, they are most likely puppets. (Because File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg did not express reservations when discussing deletion, it is possible that the puppets were trying to keep these pictures. In fact, the problems of File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg and File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg are the same as these) 御坂雪奈 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the design and structure of these pictures are not simple: because the strokes of "M" plus "Ʌ" add up to six strokes, which is not a simple picture, so it should be deleted immediately. 御坂雪奈 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Yuri Grigorovich, Art Director of Bolshoi.jpg

The poster on the wall is probably copyrighted. The cropped version already exists. Romano1981 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've emailed the LoC, they are looking into it. I'll report back what I've found. JayCubby (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Nottuln, Monument 115 Wohnhaus Roxeler Str. 13 2020-04-04 3825.jpg

Es handelt sich um eine Aufnahme von eine Privatgrundstück ohne Zustimmung der Besitzer der Immobile. Daher darf das wiederrechtlich aufgenomme Bild nicht veröffentlicht werden. Das Bild ist zudem von dem Privatgrundstück des Immobilenbesitzers aufgenommen worden ohne Zustimmung. 2A00:6020:A5AA:DD00:2C41:6D27:B3D2:5942 11:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Confirmed per Google streetview. Von der Straße aus ist das Gebäude so nicht zu sehen. --Achim55 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Wenn es tatsächlich widerrechtlich aufgenommen bzw. veröffentlicht wurde, darf es selbstverständlich gelöscht werden. Creosoph (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Similarity report of text originality checking software PlagiarismCheck.org.png

COM:Screenshot, https://plagiarismcheck.org/ has no free license. MKFI (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Герб Ардатовского района Нижегородской области.png

Replaced with Shield Ardatovsky MO.svg file Leokand (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: still COM:INUSE. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Files on GLAM at Keralam - Museum of History and Heritage

These pages of text all have copyrights. The images therefore are derivative works and infringe.

. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Impracticaljokeman (talk · contribs)

This user uploaded 3 files. One of them (already deleted) was a clear copyvio. While I could not find something with reverse image search, I suspect that these two files are copyvios as well. They should be deleted per the precautionary principle.

Rosenzweig τ 14:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Praha, Břevnov, sad ve večerních hodinách (74737).jpg

An untintended duplicty of another file. Aktron (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ruth Cahn, Selbsporträt.jpg

not PD-old, Ruth Cahn died 1966 Goesseln (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:HAVRYLOVA LIDIIA 2019.jpg

The file was uploaded by collective user of the government agency - Державна аудиторська служба України in English State Audit Service of Ukraine. Because uploading such files violated rules on Commons and photographer's copyright, this file must be deleted. Kharkivian (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Disney's Animal KingdomIt's tough to be a Bug.jpg

This is actually a photo of the screen for the film, making this a copyrighted screenshot. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Sanja Mitrovic at Royal Flemish Theatre (KVS) in Brussels, 2021.jpg

Copyvio. Not own work. This image was made by Danny Willems, photographer known for his collaboration with Arno, in 2018, as stated in the EXIF data. The image occurs on other places on the Internet, such as https://www.theaterdo.de/ueber-uns/mitarbeiter-innen/biografie/sanja-mitrovic/ where it is credited (c) Danny Willems. Henxter (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Shailesh Matiyani 01.JPG

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 15:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Natak Logo.jpg

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 16:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Navyug Logo.jpg

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 16:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:James J Zito III.jpg

This is an old horrible older picture of me and we are trying to update sand box to get on Wikipedia. JamesJZitoIII (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Neda Ebrahim.jpg

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 16:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Panels in Corezzo

Hi everyone. I'm proposing these two images for deletion since they are a derivative work of the two panels which, as stated by the uploader here, were commissioned by the local "pro loco" (a private association for the promotion of the village) and therefore are most likely copyrighted. No FoP in Italy. --Friniate (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Бронепоезд "Тамбовский рабочий" 2.jpg

Fake licence. The photo was taken in 1942 and not by user Rorikot. Pessimist (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: File comes from: Титов Георгий Иванович זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Мельников (talk · contribs)

Derivatives of copyrighted artworks, no FoP in Russia except architecture.

Quick1984 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:PH-EC360ATG.jpg

seems like promotional spam per WP:SPAM; out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Choir of the Cathedral of Albi.jpg

uploaded to wrong wikidata item, a repeated upload, sorry Luistxo (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Dombipa.jpg

Source is dead. No proof that image is 100 years + Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Copy of one of the eighty-four Mahasiddha of the Abhayadatta System based on the depictions documented by Jonang Taranata (1575-1635) as commissioned and painted as murals in the Ganden Puntsogling Monastery, Tibet . Quite old in fact.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Aishaty.jpg

Out of project scope, used for self-promotion of non-notable individual on WD Jianhui67^T★C 18:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete nonsense descri, out of scope. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Soulmate.png

Out of project scope, used for promotion of non-notable individual on WD Jianhui67^T★C 18:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete out of scope. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Deliever.png

Out of project scope, used for promotion of non-notable individual on WD Jianhui67^T★C 18:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete nonsense descri, cool date, out of scope. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:BetterOutThanIn.gif

unused, no encyclopedic value, no categories after 5 years, useless, etc F (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Categorized and one of the winners of the 2018 challenge . — Racconish ^💬 09:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Visual Novelty interface.png

https://8oni.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/novelty-membuat-dialog-memasukkan-aktor-membuat-pilihan-mengganti-background-memasukkan-gambarsuara-latar/ suggests that the cartoon person is stock imagery that comes as part of the software, rather than the uploader's own work. Belbury (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Central Maghreb and Ifriqiya c. 1065.png

No map as a source 2A02:8440:8101:472F:C086:632A:A1B7:4906 18:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep per COM:INUSE. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Inland Lake.jpg

Dupe of File:Inland water Lake.jpg, user with bad history, bad quality photo of common subject, OUT OF SCOPE. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Inland water Lake.jpg

Dupe of File:Inland Lake.jpg, user with bad history, bad quality photo of common subject, OUT OF SCOPE. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Logitech F710 (Exey Panteleev).jpg

Not educationally useful; no-one is going to use a 300x300px image to illustrate nude women or controllers in 2025; also no-one is going to use an image with naked female breasts as a background to illustrate a controller (or vice versa); seems to have been created to make a point in a VP discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Even if all that was true, do we need this low-resolution crop that (as I said) poorly illustrates both naked women and videogame controllers? Dronebogus (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete this is simply not a useful image. Not just "not useful for Wikipedia," but plain "not useful." I cannot imagine this image being used to illustrate anything but itself, and if that is enough then nothing would be out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per Jmabel. What even is this? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: COM:NOTCENSORED does not address my argument for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 17:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  @Jmabel: Fine, I add the arguments of Tm. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Tm's arguments seem to boil down to WP:N (this isn't WP, N is irrelevant) and precedent, which is also not a policy here. No-one is showing how gratuitous nude women explain the technology of game controllers. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs probably shouldn't be deleted since there's a clear consensus that they are in scope. It doesn't look this image has been nominated for deletion though and there's zero reason that every single image this guy creates for the rest of eternity would be educational purely because he came in 15th at some minor photography competition once. Otherwise your arguing for inherited notability, which has nothing to do with educational value. At least not for modern photographs or photographers. An image of 911 on here by a random Flickr user is educational due to the subject matter. Whereas a photograph that they took 15 years later of their foot obviously isn't. The same goes here. The specific photograph that were part of the competition that he's notable for are educational. Whereas random images of women's boobs that he took years later and have nothing to do with why he's notable aren't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete because the image clearly does fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful.
––– If one was to illustrate a game controller there are far better images than these. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

File:White Black Grey Box Testing (53018567334).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete because the image fails COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful. If one was to illustrate the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than this one and one does neither need hundreds of photos nor this particular image to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series which is not very notable to begin with. In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. Regarding prior discussion people may bring up: if you think these are relevant, please paste the specific argument to keep here if and/or write one. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. 20:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Klariniou (talk · contribs)

Potential copyvio: invalid license; these are clearly not own work. It's possible but unlikely that they're PD due to age; do we have any more specific information on their origin and date of publication?

Omphalographer (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I scanned the slide ruler and its document I used during my studies in the sixties 2A01:CB04:5C9:A000:9DE1:29A2:97CB:1D40 05:54, 20 May 2025 (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.

Pixel-for-pixel sprite recreations in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology)

This category of images has been nominated for deletion a ton of times, and has been kept every time, but the nominations have always been about the nudity and scope. It’s clear that, as a series, the files are within scope.

However these specific files are derivative works of copyrighted sprites. They are pixel-for-pixel close recreations of the sprites from the games they depict. In a previous deletion discussion one user said that this was fine per di minimus, but the sprites in question are central to the photos themselves, so de minimus doesn’t apply. They’re what make the photos works of art that are within scope.

I really don’t want this to devolve into yet another discussion about the entire photo collection and/or nudity in general, this is just about the images in this set that have close recreations of copyrighted art as their central features.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, File:Awesome Face (51760448583).jpg, and File:Do U No De Wei?.jpg may also have the same DW issue. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Awesome Face (51760448583).jpg depicts an emoji and that should be under {{PD-font}} — no copyvio: Keep. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Strike that: It may not be in Unicode (yet?) but this exact artwork was originally licensed as CC-BY-SA: See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:718smiley.png. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the people from the previous discussion: Tm, Tuvalkin, Dronebogus. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: It is de minimis, not de minimus. Keep for now, at least, File:Duck Hunt (51574806206).jpg, as the copyrighted sprite is only a minor part of the image; there are other elements that certainly make it de minimis: for example, the gun the woman is holding, that thing she is wearing on her eyes, the background, and even the nudity itself… RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, in File:Duck Hunt (51574806206).jpg, there is no pixel-for-pixel recreation, as the skin painting is not pixelated in any way: It’s just a freehand recreation of a known design, and the copyrigtability of that is, at least, shakey. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep de minimis— most people aren’t looking at the sprites here, if you catch my drift Dronebogus (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: You can't have it both ways. You're essentially making the argument is that it's in scope because of the art, but that the art doesn't count for copyright purposes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Those aren’t mutually exclusive Dronebogus (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology)

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons.

List of files

Dronebogus (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete because those images fail COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful. If one was to illustrate the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than these and one does not need hundreds of photos to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series (which btw is not very notable to begin with). In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. Regarding prior discussion people may bring up: if you think these are relevant, please paste or at least name the specific argument(s) to keep here if and/or write one if you think these should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. However, since this page is on my watchlist from the nomination above, I might as well drop in and say I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment - was it intentional that you only nominated the first 66 files in this category? There are several hundred more. Omphalographer (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t want to accidentally hit an INUSE one and wasn’t going to sort through the entire massive category. Dronebogus (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep No valid reasons for deletion. For the record: of the 770 Panteleev files 89 are in use, incl. some in serious Wiki articles like Sexuell objektifiering, Vajazzle and Dominance and submission. -- Vysotsky (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

And yes, you "accidentally hit an INUSE one" - in use on a member page. Vysotsky (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

89 out of 770 is about one eighth. That means 7/8ths of them are unused. And I’d appreciate if you pointed out which in use one I accidentally nominated so I could remove it. Dronebogus (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

11.5% of images in use? That is a surprisingly high amount, showing that these types of images may have surprise applications that we can't know in advance.

Would you also consider to delete most of the images from Category:Concert Ève Angeli - 6 septembre 2015? Of 34 images in that category, only 2 are currently in use, which means a rate of under 6%. I randomly chose a smaller concert category for this demonstration, but concert categories usually have between dozens and hundreds of images, most of them usually not used. One might argue that only "the ten best images" of an artist at the same concert are worthy to keep and get used. But I don't think we have watchdogs who do that - probably because musical performers have more clothes than the models. Enyavar (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Just simply saying "No valid reasons for deletion" doesn't make it so. The rationale is valid and refers to an existing Commons policy. Of the 829 files, 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. Since neither those nor those used otherwise, e.g. on userpages, are the nominated ones, it's your Keep rationale that is not valid. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete Largely out of scope. Some of the early images in the series were probably clever for their time, but the concept got old fast. Most of this stuff is unusable. Adsci8 (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, what about the Mona Lisa? At first it was clever for its time, but the concept got old fast. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The Mona Lisa is far more artistically significant than “Geekography” and Leonardo da Vinci didn’t have to paint 600 variations on her to stay relevant. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep, for all the previously adduced reasons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Please name them. There is no good valid reason to keep all or most of these. Your link also does not contain any specific reason(s). Prototyperspective (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

No. The o.p. and the those asking for deletion have the burden of the proof. As per normal course and especially so in this case, where all these arguments have been had in the past. We all know that this is about either grave-dancing against Fæ or prudes coming out of the woodwork in the “changing political climate” (or both, can be both). Eitherway, I owe you no explanation nor justification to support my opinion. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: What were Fæ's reasons? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Fæ voted keep in previous DRs about this series (unless I’m completely misremembering). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That isn’t a reason. Dronebogus (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete I've never been convinced of these having value, or meeting SCOPE. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The first DR I can find referring to these is here Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology (an erudite conversation, based on a Keep !vote of "Hot chicks"). Those since mostly seem to be based on the argument "Kept previously". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you have anything relevant to say here, rather than a pure ad hominem of the nominator? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

My last comment: Andy Dingley, it is quite curious that you question my supposed ad hominem when what should really be under discussion is the clearly (and admitted) disruptive behavior of the account that opened these deletion requests. Is calling things by their name a personal attack? Well, perhaps the administrator most engaged in deleting these images will interpret my comment as a personal attack on the account most engaged in deleting these images. An account, by the way, that exists in this project solely to undermine it, not to help build it – an average of just one file uploaded every two weeks, fewer than 50 in the past two years.

In a project where puritans on a senseless moral crusade band together in a cabal to censor what they dislike, I can only step away. And would you look at that, I have already invested time, energy, and even money to expand the Commons collection. Twice this year alone, I went to the National Library to photograph an 18th-century manuscript that had never been fully published online – one of the few records of a particular language – and the first edition of a 1687 book, also without any available digitization. Transportation was not free, nor was the food that gave me the energy to do it. I did it purely for the pleasure of enabling free access to knowledge.

I have purchased books and photographed them for this project – ignoring those that, not being in the public domain, I could only upload to shadow libraries. Just those two photos cost me 100 reais; the more recent ones, about 50. I have never asked for anything in return. Even when I could demand attribution, I still chose to license my contributions to the public domain. But of course, the one who should be taken seriously here is the person who does little, if anything, for the project, other than attempt to disrupt it. And worse: openly admits it!

If this comment is once again deemed a personal attack by the same person, then grant me patience. I no longer wish to do anything restricted here, but I do ask not to be banned, as I still have plans to pursue in other Wikimedia projects, and I need access here to do so. In fact, I also require a clean record to access The Wikipedia Library. It was there, actually, while reading an article about the edition of the nearly four-century-old book I had photographed, that I learned only one scholar of the Indigenous language in which the book was written had ever accessed it. Now, everyone – even you – can see and read it.

Well then, imagine that. While some people seem to enjoy browsing categories of nude women only to – surprise, surprise – be shocked by the sight of nude women, I was (or used to be) more concerned with producing content that actually gives this project some credibility. There is more to be said, but I remain silent because time is a scarce resource. What appears in my record on this project is closer to a trophy than a source of shame. I wish everyone the best. Best regards, may Tupã bless you, and may you live, go out, and experience life, RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody likes a braggart, especially one who uses their accomplishments to bring other people down. Dronebogus (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest to RodRabelo7 a test run of those newfangled rules about safety-and-whatchamacallit the WMF has been boasting about recently. What can be done to prevent something like the comment above? How much of an insult is "braggart", given the context? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh he was blocked. And I mean RodRabelo7 was blocked. Just wow. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

RodRabelo has done nothing but trash my worth as a contributor. I just implied he was engaging in self-aggrandizing in I think a fairly tactful way. There’s not even a comparison here. Dronebogus (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t use paint. You could at least get that right. Dronebogus (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Also the only thing I’m “jealous” of is the fact that Panteleev takes a 4k closeup photo of a butthole and gets hailed as a genius while I get bashed for drawing a partially obscured boob. Dronebogus (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't even a rationale, you're just using external information to somehow disparage what is being said Thegoofhere (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tm: What educational use do these images have? You can hate my images all you want, but they at least illustrate something notable that has few or no other illustrations. And if he’s so damn notable why is there not a single Wikipedia article in any language on this guy? And no, User:Pornhater123 saying “this is yucky porn” 500 different ways 500 different times is hardly “debated to death”. Dronebogus (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Besides all what i have said before, and that you refuse to either read or understand what i am saying, for again asking me the same question you made, maybe two years ago, my comment below also answers your questions what educational use do these images have, in use in 58 Wikimedia projects.

And this images illustrate, much better, something notable that also has few or no other images on Commons or under free licenses.

And why are you asking me about his notability if you, yourself wrote that "notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons", notability does not matter to Commons and yourself said "this is one of those very rare cases where something notable", i.e. you, yourself wrote that this and him is notable, so why are you know questioning me about it, if yourself said his work is notable?

And yes, more 40 dr´s discussions all closed as kept, most of the times closed as this images being in scope and educational, for the last 13 yars. , is “debated to death”. Rehashing from above, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology is specially interesting as some users hijacked the 2019 WikiConference North America to try to supress this images, by deleting categories and descriptions, just because. Tm (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I specifically argued that notability has nothing to do with scope. Not that these are even particularly notable. Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Scope doesn’t need notability, but notability ensures scope. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

1. No, it doesn't 2. Even if notability would ensure scope, that can still vary in extent – for example if a pornographer is notable that doesn't mean all of the porn clips are within scope if they are CCBY or at some point public domain; maybe it would imply that one clip or one photo of the person would be within scope but what is in scope can vary and is debatable. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep Quality is an important factor when scope is determined, and these are high quality professional nude photographs of women that show a wide range of artistic and technical variation (different models, poses, props, lighting setups, etc.) Scope doesn't require images to be in use, but images being in use is usually a strong indicator for something being in scope. The fact that about 1/8th of the series apparently is already in use indicates that the project as a whole has established relevance, particularly when the images are diverse in composition, subject, and technical execution. However, if people feel strongly that the series should be trimmed, I think it might help expedite matters to decide for each individual photo if there is another photograph on Commons like it (same pose, for example) that is superior in every meaningful way. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Nude photographs of women are better when there isn't stuff written or in some cases painted onto them. Moreover, even when considering that, where is the educational use? 2. I doubt 1/8th of the series is in use, maybe you're counting user pages and wiki pages that seem to just be some attempt to build some small porn gallery site on wiki and the Russian Wikinews page contains a very large if not excessive number of them. Files that have been deleted as out of scope are also diverse in composition and subject, why would that be any reason to keep? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Being painted or not is a matter of your personal taste, as there is a thing called body art (and some of this images are used in articles about it) and that body art is also part of the work of this photographer, that is in scope, as per all previous discussions, discussed to ad nauseam.

You said you "doubt 1/8th of the series is in use" yet that is exactly the percentage of images in use, 244 times with 104 distinct images used (i.e. 12,5% or 1/8) in the following 58 projects from Wikipedias, to Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikitionary, Wikinews and Wikiversity:

ru.wikinews,vi.wikipedia, de.wikipedia, en.wikipedia, zh.wikipedia, ca.wikipedia, it.wikipedia, ru.wikipedia, uk.wikipedia, wikidata.wikidata, fa.wikipedia, es.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia, sr.wikipedia, tr.wikipedia, da.wikipedia, id.wikipedia, nl.wikipedia, pl.wikipedia, eu.wikipedia, az.wikipedia, et.wikipedia, ps.wikipedia, fr.wiktionary, ar.wikipedia, bn.wikipedia, hy.wikipedia, meta.wikipedia, ga.wikipedia, ur.wikipedia, te.wikipedia, ms.wiktionary, li.wiktionary, cs.wikipedia, kk.wikipedia, hi.wikipedia, eo.wikipedia, de.wiktionary, he.wikipedia, cv.wikipedia, af.wikipedia, sk.wikipedia, uz.wikipedia, incubator.wikipedia, tt.wikipedia, fy.wikipedia, zu.wikipedia, arz.wikipedia, azb.wikipedia, ms.wikipedia, ceb.wikipedia, sv.wikipedia, gl.wikipedia, la.wikipedia, sd.wikipedia, pl.wiktionary, en.wikiversity, sat.wiktionary and nl.wikibooks

These numbers can be seen in https:\\glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous.php?doit=1&category=Photographs by Exey Panteleev&use_globalusage=1&depth=5&show_details=1&projects%5Bwikipedia%5D=1&projects%5Bwikimedia%5D=1&projects%5Bwikisource%5D=1&projects%5Bwikibooks%5D=1&projects%5Bwikiquote%5D=1&projects%5Bwiktionary%5D=1&projects%5Bwikinews%5D=1&projects%5Bwikivoyage%5D=1&projects%5Bwikispecies%5D=1&projects%5Bmediawiki%5D=1&projects%5Bwikidata%5D=1&projects%5Bwikiversity%5D=1

And you can see very well that the vast majority of its uses is not "counting user pages and wiki pages that seem to just be some attempt to build some small porn", ergo clearly shows that all this images are clearly in scope, also per the last more then 40 discussions from dr´s to Village Pump in the last 13 years. But some people just love to beat on a dead horse for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about – The scan shows that of the 829 files, just 28 distinct are being used in mainspace, excluding wikinews. That is 3.38% of all images of category. Moreover, this discussion is not about these files that are used, but about the nominated files. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Scope clearly says "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope", not "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose, and is therefore in scope, unless it is used only in the following places: User pages

Talk pages (of any namespace), Inactive sandbox and draft pages, Project pages that are automatically generated lists of files (such as Arabic Wikipedia's list of recently uploaded files with Arabic captions), etc" not " "A file that is in use on any other Wikimedia Foundation project (...), unless it is used only in the following places: (...) Russian Wikinews".

And the same [[Commons:Scope says, given the deletionists claim that this images lack educational value and are bad quality no matter what, a remainder, altought this does not apply to this images, that "It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope.", ergo you cannot exclude a project usage of the images just because you think you can.

Then, your exclusion of Wikinews is nothing more then trying to fiddle with numbers, as in ALL mainspaces, the numbers are image usages in 191 in total, with 89 distinct images used or 10.74% of all images of category, a mere drop of less then 2%, even if only considereing only the usages in Wikimedia projects mainspaces. Now, how many of the almost 119 285 260 images in Commons are in use with the same criteria, 3.38% or 4 031 842 images? Very unlikely, as even the English Wikipedia has "only" 6,997,526 and many of them have zero images, and many of the images in use are repeated from articles to articles and from laguages to languages.

Ergo, this discussion is about the all category, given that the deletion request opener just wants to obliterate all images, for whatever his own reasons, and this shows that this images are in heavy use, most likely, much more then the percentages of images of Commons being used in other Wikipedia projects. Tm (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Something not being in use is not a good argument for or against keeping. Something else being in use isn’t a good argument either. Address the actual individual merits of the nominated files without spamming walls of links. Dronebogus (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Now no one can compare the percentages of use of this images, in other Wikimedia projects, to the all percentage of images in use in Commons, to assert their very own scope and educational use when compared to all images in Commons, like i or Prototyperspective did, per your "Something not being in use is not a good argument for or against keeping"?

Then why you, yourself, argued to delete this images because 90% of this images are not in use ("90% are not, making them essentially redundant")? The danger of this argument of yours that "images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant", is established here as precedent for deletion of sets of images about a subject, then we should prepare to delete dozens upon dozens of millions of thousands upon thousands of images of the same sets and subjects, as they are also not in use. I.E. as you said and others this images have no special status on Commons policies, as they do not, in relation to other images, then the all the other images should have the same treatment about not being in use. That, after you arguing that this project was notable ("where something notable") and then none or almost non notable ("notability is irrelevant to Commons" and "Not that these are even particularly notable"), in relation for your arguments to delete.

And for your info, i have adressed the actual individual merits of the nominated files without spamming walls of links, on the around 30 carbon copy deletion requests that you opened with the same exact copypast text argument in them all. Tm (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

These are high quality nude photographs. Are they educational? Are nudes within scope here, and for what reason?

I don't see these as within scope. They have two potential scopes, I see both as problematic and failing.

Clearly these would easily meet educational scope if they explained the computing concept in some particularly clear or memorable way. They do not. The concept of MongoDB selection clauses is not clarified by writing it on a nude woman. A few of them make some smutty puns, which we might claim as amusing. Does that pass scope? Does that give all of them (most of these are not particularly insightful) a free pass too?

Do they pass SCOPE here as nudes. Nudes can, we have plenty already. But are they made more likely to do so if some irrelevant computer woffle is included too? No. Like the upload of yet another penis selfie, Commons is not short on nudes and doesn't need more, and it certainly doesn't need these ones just to illustrate the human body, whether anatomically nor artistically.

There is also the issue (which we fall over ourselves to not talk about, lest we be seen as prudish) that these are a pretty crass objectification of women's bodies. Women are not there as a canvas to explain geek trivia to a bunch of incels, because it's the only way to motivate them to look at a screen. I do not see these images here as in any way supporting a project that I want to put effort into building. You want PornHub, go to PornHub. Is this whole set a sexualised, misogynistic excuse that doesn't justify itself? Yes. For a couple of things to think about, where are the pictures of men here? (There are a couple, but that's it) and also where are the women arguing that this set is valuable, meets SCOPE, and should be kept? Even within the boys club of Wikipedia, this is a very male subset of editors.

I cannot see any way in which these belong here. Panteleev can have other WEBHOSTs, should he need. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, nudes are categorically within Commons scope. Erotic nudity, naturalism, body art, porn - it's all within scope. That's not to say that everything uploaded within that scope is allowed to stay, but generally speaking if it illustrates its subject well, nude photography is - like photography of any other kind - allowed on Commons. To get an idea of what's generally considered within scope, you can find an archive of nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests that were closed as "kept" here. For the policy on nudity specifically, there's COM:NUDE, which puts emphasis on quality and variation.

"...also where are the women arguing that this set is valuable, meets SCOPE, and should be kept?"

You just replied to one :p ReneeWrites (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

For the record I agree with you, but loudly complaining about porn and misogyny is exactly what the “keep no matter what” hardliners want— an easy strawman argument that !delete voters are all reactionary prudes who don’t actually care about what actual women think, actually written by a !delete voter. Dronebogus (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Asking, first for the wall of text below, as i am rehashing from this past deletion request, but given some of the questions are the same, but had to writing below as the harders arguments of that deletion requests do not apply here, fortunely.

TL;DR of points 1 to 3 below, this images can and have been used to explain "the computing concept in some particularly clear or memorable way", be it by generic or tech media.

Facts first:

1 - What about women have to say, like ReeneWrites, who voted to keep and identified herself as woman, you have Violet Blue, an reputable and famous feminist, tech and sexuality writer, sex educator discussed, several times and for many years, this same project in her blog, making positive comments about this images and the photographer

2 - The Question of "explained the computing concept in some particularly clear or memorable way", can be answered inthe fact this project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like having a photo, uploaded to Commons, being the cover of the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012", ergo a cover of a technology magazine. In the same tech space, the dutch The Next Web, "website and annual series of conferences focused on new technology and start-up companies in Europe", also covered how this images are useful to undertand programming concepts or procedures. Besides the author was interviewed to to the tech page of Mail.Ru, one of the biggest, if not the biggest tech companies, in the RuNet, where he also talks about his project.

Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other media have covered this same project, like GQ Italy, here and the French newspaper Libération [watt.blogs.liberation.fr - HTML HOOQ - Libération.fr/ here], or the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012, also in Reflex, have articles covering precisely about this project and how it explains computing and technologic concepts, programs and facts.

3- About this images itself, the models are adult, mature and free women, modeling on their own terms and conditions, clearly as professional models, so sorry, Andy Dingley, but i disagree of your text above in all points, altough, unlike some users in the past like in the linked dr, i think your opinion comes from a good place, albeit with the wrong reasons and causes, as if any of theseat least 17 models had ever complained, beyond a reasonable doubt, of being victims of mysogeny or objectification in this project, i would myself vote to delete the images of that model.

First some of the adult and free women models work\worked with this photographer since the begging of the project ten years ago until today and model is participating anonymously, as it can clearly see their faces and names (Olya, Darina, Y., Olga, Olga, Alena, Maria, Anna, V., Margo, Polina, Agneta, Masha, Marusia, Alexandra, Luiza, Kristin) on his website, some of them are even famous on their own like Katya Sambuca.

This project is an ensemble of images that fuses artistic nude photography and technology and to show that this is really an conceptual artist and not some creepy random dude, let the people that are the artists speak. He not only had photos published in a "nude art photography" book, but he won Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best between 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod and with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. An he was nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the american International Colour Awards.

Personal opinion:

4-And, last but not least, the claim here or other DR that "these are a pretty crass objectification of women's", "sometimes women do degrading things for money" and that "These women at least had the choice to do so anonymously" is, in my oponion, appaling, shocking and demeaning to "these women", many times more then any of this images as a whole or separated could be. So, what we, Commons Users (male of female), are we even saying about the free choice of adult women, when some say that this objectify them, when they freely posed for this photos? Are they not entitled to do show (or not) their bodies whatever the way they choose? Is it not feminism fighting to make women make equal to men and and make free choices without anyone mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices? Arent opinions that shames and lowers their choices something that could be considered to be a patronizing and moralistic view by these same models? Or do some of us, random Commons users (statistically most probably an adult men), know more and mansplain that free and adult female models know less about their free choices and decisions of where, when, how and to whom make this kind of images?

This is question of basic human decency and dignity of this models. By saying that they, photographer and models, work is nothing more then a "whole set a sexualised, misogynistic excuse that doesn't justify itself" is almost, if not totally for some past comments some years ago, slut shamming them, by blame the models for their choice of work. We are talking of professional models, working in their field of work, posing to a reputable and famous photographer for several years and situations. At least 17 models choose by their own free will to pose for him, so who are we to say they have objectified themselves?

Could we, please show some respect for this models, and not comment of their choices as and, ergo, ourselves objecty them, their work and their free choices and not make comments that attack the integrity and professionalism of the photographer and models or make in the future, like in previous comments, that denigrates, slut shame, undervalues and makes misogynist claims on these models and their work by mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices? Is it not something that could said to be a patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices, typical of people that attack the political, spiritual, sexual, moral, reproductive and other basic rights under the cover of "moral, religious or pudency reasons". Tm (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, nudes are categorically within Commons scope.

No, that is a pretty simple fallacy. Nudes are not categorically outside scope. But that does not mean that they are within it, unless they are within it for some other reason. They're not excluded for being nudes, but nor does simply being nudes mean that they're then implicitly part of it. Why are these within scope? What part of it do they meet? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, it seems you stopped reading after my first sentence, seeing as that was addressed as well, so here's the rest: not everything uploaded within the scope of nudity is allowed to stay, but generally speaking if it illustrates its subject well, nude photography is - like photography of any other kind - allowed on Commons. To get an idea of what's generally considered within scope, you can find an archive of nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests that were closed as "kept" here. For the policy on nudity specifically, there's COM:NUDE, which puts emphasis on quality and variation. I think these photos meet the benchmarks laid out there easily. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Do these stand as educational explanations, or as nudes? It could be either, but it needs to be one or the other. As technical explanations, they're gratuitous. But as nudes too, in what way were they made better by having HTML tags painted on the body? These are neither. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the reason you're framing this as a binary (something is either "a nude" or it's "educational") is because you're disregarding the scope I outlined earlier. That framing doesn't reflect Commons policy. COM:NUDE is not concerned with subject matter in the way you're suggesting; it's inclusive of nudity, erotic imagery, and even porn, but outlines limits in scope based primarily on lack of quality or lack of variation. It might help to bear in mind that that policy was written with dick pics in mind, and that those too are allowed to stay, if they meet the standards outlined on the page. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
But these aren’t significant variations on what we already have on the subjects of erotic photography, or body painting, or sexual objectification, which are the only things they realistically illustrate and are ever used to illustrate outside of “that one RuWikiNews article”. They obviously aren’t appropriate illustrations of computer science per w:wp:gratuitous, and the photographer is not independently notable enough to justify keeping any work of his that is not clearly in-scope (i.e. unused), nor is the project itself notable enough to keep every single photo from it. Dronebogus (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to evaluate and nominate pictures individually, citing similar images on Commons that you feel do a better job illustrating the subject. This is the solution I proposed before, it's in line with policy, and is more likely to result in productive discussion and an outcome people are satisfied with. For people reading up on or taking part in these discussions it would provide more clarity and transparency, too. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tm: you’re bludgeoning this conversation with filibuster-length comments. We know your opinion, you’ve stated your opinion multiple times, you aren’t convincing anyone who wasn’t already convinced. Dronebogus (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop making these accusations. You did it to me in a different deletion, and now you are doing it to Tm. Please stop. Not least because your use of the word “filibustering” is a little ridiculous. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom and Prototyperspective. Also support blocks for RodRabelo7 for aggressive personal attacks^{Update: I see that has in fact already occured, apologies for rubbing it in.} and Tm for bludgeoning this discussion. Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: RodRabelo was given a temporary block for that exact reason, but I would support an indef for being completely remorseless about it. I also think Tm should be blocked for bludgeoning and generally being as hostile as possible. Dronebogus (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Dronebogus, I've adjusted my post accordingly. I agree wholeheartedly with both your points; both users have contributed to an unnecessarily toxic atmosphere. Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete The images in the series that have been kept in previous DRs and part of the competition that he's notable for probably shouldn't be deleted since there's a clear consensus that they are educational. There's zero reason that every single image this guy creates for the rest of eternity would be educational purely because he came in 15th at some minor photography competition once though. Otherwise your arguing for inherited notability, which has nothing to do with educational value. At least not for modern photographs or photographers. An image of 911 on here by a random Flickr user is educational due to the subject matter. Whereas a photograph that they took 15 years later of their foot obviously isn't. The same goes here. The specific photographs that were part of the competition that he's notable for are educational. Whereas random images of women's body parts that he took years later and have nothing to do with why he's notable aren't. Or your creating a de-facto standard where everything is inherently educational just because of other images by the same person being on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Rather than simply !voting, I have a more radical proposal: keep the images, but remove them from all subject-related categries ("Austin Powers", "chat bubble", etc.) to which they are being used to add irrelevant nude images, gaming the system, and protect them so such categrories cannot be re-added (likewise for SDC). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting idea. But if they're not close enough to scope to be valid for categorising, are they really worth keeping? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd support that if the images aren't deleted. The scope issues are still a valid reason to delete the images anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s less radical; you’re just making a compromise to suppress the images, especially in the context of file searching, without deleting them (shadow-banning them essentially); this is passing the buck to another inevitable DR solely to appease !keep voters who largely haven’t made a serious case as to why these are in-scope, and in fact serves as a good argument for deletion— they are filling up irrelevant categories with gratuitous pornography, actively disrupting the usefulness of Commons for the ordinary user, without any concrete benefit to offset it. Dronebogus (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete. There is no evidence that the people depicted in these photos consented to have their photos licensed on Commons for anyone in the world to do whatever they want with. Jerimee (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

They’re professional models. It’s extremely likely they were informed of all relevant aspects of the project. Even though I obviously support deletion that’s an exceptionally poor argument. Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep per all others above. Yann (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I’d appreciate you actually made an argument yourself instead of simply casting an empty vote (which is what you’re actually doing in practice- I seriously hope you don’t think all of the !delete votes are somehow legitimate arguments). Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: Obviously, @Yann meant all the other keeps. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I know that; I’m saying most of them (including yours) are based on invalid premises and an actual argument would be nice. With some it’s obvious (RodRabelo’s could be struck due to being a personal attack so severe it resulted in a block; a couple of others had no real argument at all) with yours you’re arguing against a straw man that is irrelevant to the deletion rationale (at no point to I even mention the nudity, let alone cite it as a basis for deletion). Dronebogus (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I’m fairly certain the closing admin will take into account the arguments made. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep humorous digital artwork under CC-license. Yes, it has the potential to harm the project if these images are overtagged and then show up as first results in searches (kids use the search function, too). But that harm can be prevented by consequently not tagging these images with common search terms. If that still doesn't help, the the solution should still be a technical one, not a porn ban. --Enyavar (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
humorous digital artwork under CC-license where is the reason to keep though? Do you think it should be kept because it's humorous? Why would it be within scope? Prototyperspective (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Not because it is humorous, but because it is art. In the discussion above, people have determined that ca. 11.5% of the images in the category are currently in use - a higher percentage than most performance art categories, I might add. That means there may be educational value in at least some, but we can hardly know in advance before someone actually finds a use. Lots of sexual/kink topics are lacking quality pictures.
On the other hand, technology topics are often seen as unappealing: If a nude can awaken your interest into looking up the CMYK-Model or the Bayes-Theorem, that is not the worst purpose for nude imagery. (Yet obviously, these images are not for usage IN those articles.) --Enyavar (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Why would all art be within scope? Underneath that claim about 11.5% I wrote that of the 829 files, just 28 distinct ones are being used in mainspace when excluding wikinews (where that one Russian wikinews article with an excessive number of images is). That is 3.38%. And in any case, it has little relevance here since the nominated files are not the ones that are in use. there may be educational value which? There is no realistic educational use at least. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I would agree with this argument. I can’t see the educational use of any of these images. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

So we’re finally admitting this is mainly to get gooners to pay attention to computer science by putting it on naked women’s asses? The sort of thing Andy was viciously attacked for as some kind of prudish misogynist for being brave enough to just state outright? But I guess we have one woman voting !keep (IMO also the only decent !keep vote for whatever it’s worth), so that makes it okay. The only “educational value” this has is promoting negative stereotypes about women, computer technology, and men who are interested in computer technology. This seems like the complete opposite of the image Wikimedia wants to promote with initiatives like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Celebrate_Women Dronebogus (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment I don't like being accussed of not bringing up a decent "keep" argument. While I don't particularly like these images, they are useful. If one wants to describe sexual objectification, an image is much more effective than words. My main argument was that these images are also used in "serious Wiki articles like Sexuell objektifiering, Vajazzle and Dominance and submission". Some other reasons for keeping the images have been given above. This is about the twentieth discussion about these photographs in 13 years. It seems that some people just keep trying, without bringing up any new arguments - and fail to see that the only thing they accomplish is giving more attention to the images. Vysotsky (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Those are obviously in scope. 500 others depicting nude women dressed up in silly outfits with the excuse “oh she’s an emoji lol” are not. Dronebogus (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

So can you express a definition, applicable to the contents of this category, for which are the 'keep' and the 'delete' images? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Are you asking me? The formatting is getting unclear at this point Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Academie-Normandie article paru le 10-03-2025 A.pdf

Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Cet article m'a été refusé sous prétexte qu'il n'a pas été publié: Voici la preuve de sa publication; Sci-du-val-brie (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

File:NEU Erfurt hoch 4c.jpg

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 19:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Neuoo logo.png

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 19:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:New 10 9 2019 DjBoy7 dj logo.jpg

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 19:50, 19 May 2025 (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.

File:Zelda.jpg

No educational purpose, pornographic material RandomDuck5000 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy keep, as usual. Pinging Tm and Tuvalkin. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment As stated earlier, inappropriate (directly) in the particular categories "The Legend of Zelda and "Minecraft". Something like "Nude or partially nude women with video game related bodypainting" would be more relevant and useful and would demonstrate higher realism of educational usefulness among other things. Agree with RandomDuck5000 in principle, albeit it's not clear that this is sufficient rationale for deletion, especially in this case as it has artistic elements that go beyond unconventional porn. People who have this particular file on their Watchlist or frequent this deletion request category (or are pinged by Keep-voters) are probably likely to vote keep or even speedy keep, I don't care whether it's kept.

Prototyperspective (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep The same old tired, beaten, reashed, reheated, more than proven untrue arguments.

Besides this dozens of dr all closed has kept, has been discussed to death (including the descriptions) in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev and there is even more as this was also debated to death in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology after some users hijacked the 2019 WikiConference North America to push and from that discussion ot was again established that this image are in clear scope. As was before debated n 2013 when an administrator run amok with the deletions out of process and this images were undeleted and scope was debated in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Ignoring willfully all this previous discussions to open another dr with the same old tired arguments is, at the simplest level, just plain wrong.

And about the categories, is pretty clear what has been said just today. Tm (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

How is this pornographic? It is a woman holding a Minecraft sword. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Didn't make this request and didn't vote delete, but to clarify: this particular image may be better or also described just as 'erotic' in an intentional central way (note that by many standards it could also be called pornography). I think that is what "RandomDuck5000" meant when he said "No educational purpose"; the purpose of it isn't educational (albeit again this particular image does show "artistic elements that go beyond unconventional porn" with the latter referring to most of the other image of this series).

Tm's comment, which e.g. showed that the headcount who voted delete may even be as high as the keep voters by now overall, was totally irrelevant to what I said which is that this image would be better placed in a category like "Category:Nude or partially nude women with video game related bodypainting". Prototyperspective (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete Lost in the discussion of the nudity is that the image painted on the torso is a derivative work of the SNES link sprite. the copyright rules for 2d art seem to be pertinent here. There are a few other ones in the same category that probably also have the same issue: File:Duck_Hunt_(51574806206).jpg, File:Donkey Kong (19724450802).jpg, and maybe also File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, File:Awesome Face (51760448583).jpg, and File:Do U No De Wei?.jpg. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep the sprite is no different than a tattoo imo, it’s de minimis. Dronebogus (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: How is it de minimis? It's literally the focus of the photo? See example 7 in Commons:De_minimis. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Zelda.jpg 2

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete I still maintain that this is a derivative work of a non-free video game sprite. Yes, it's only a small portion of the nude figure, but it's what makes this nude figure different from all other nude figures, and thus why the photo was taken, so I can't wrap my head around how de minimis would apply. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per The Squirrel Conspiracy. DW may be arguable but best policy is to go with precautionary principle for unused media without clear importance. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Duck Hunt (51574806206).jpg

1) “Artwork without obvious educational value” is not in scope; 90% of these “geekography” images have no obvious educational value whatsoever and are simply considered to have sufficient artistic value to be kept. 2) “Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject” is not in scope; some of these images are being used to illustrate the project or very occasionally other topics; 90% are not, making them essentially redundant. 3) Many users have defended the project as a whole as notable; however notability and scope are two completely different things— notability is irrelevant to Commons, and this is one of those very rare cases where something notable can be out of scope for the above reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete because the image fails COM:SCOPE which says Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and because it is not useful. If one was to illustrate the nude female body or pornography there are far better-suited images than this one and one does neither need hundreds of photos nor this particular image to illustrate the Exey Panteleev Geekography series which is not very notable to begin with. In addition, I don't see any good actual arguments to keep this. Regarding prior discussion people may bring up: if you think these are relevant, please paste the specific argument to keep here if and/or write one. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete To quote myself from one of the other open DRs, I've never really been convinced that these are in scope. Of the ones that are used, almost all are in a ru.wikinews interview with Exey Panteleev himself. However, considering how vociferous the defense of these has been in the past, I was content to just leave these here and focus on other issues. [...] I'm in favor of deleting everything in the series that isn't in use. That would still leave the two-dozen or so in the wikinews article, in the event that Exey Panteleev or Geekography ever become notable enough for proper articles. Additionally, for this specific one, I still maintain that this is a derivative work of a non-free video game sprite. Yes, it's only a small portion of the nude figure, but it's what makes this nude figure different from all other nude figures, and thus why the photo was taken, so I can't wrap my head around how de minimis would apply. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Conservative trolling from a user who holds a petty grudge against Exey Panteleev’s project for shady reasons, despite having uploaded poorly drawn pornography made in Paint . Jealousy, perhaps? I don’t know. Not to mention the bizarre obsession with Wikipetan . Should we perhaps replace Panteleev’s so-called pornography with anime-styled versions to better please the senses of the weeaboos? A senseless moral crusade, the consequences of which for this account will still arrive in a pharaonic manner. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep This again? This images and it´scope have been debated ad nauseum and to death, and yet again, one user that had previously uploaded crude drawings of port, per linked above by RodRabelo7, restarts a previous attempt at delete this images.And what is the purpose of opening several, upon several dozens of different deletion requests (on my own talkpage they were 24 different), opened all the same user, with the same copypasted argument, instead of a single one?

1 - Being in use or not is not relevant, and as the deletion request himself admits, 10% of this images are in use, so it shows they are in scope and have an educational use. Or is the deletion requester proposing, as it is unlikely that the total 10& images are in use (about 12 million), that we delete 110 millions images from Commons, 90% of the total of images in Commons. Much likely not even 2% (around 2 millions) of images in commons are in use, so this set of images have a much higher ration of use then the general use of images in Commons, so the so called arguments to delete are mute.

Better yet, their scope also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.

Project "Geekography" scope, art awards and nominations, international press coverage and previous deletion requests}}

Project by Exey Panteleev, as an artistic project that connects technology and nude photography. The photo "Copy-paste" was a Winner of The Best of Russia 2011 (and selected as one of the 55 best among 309 winners), an photographic award organized by the Moscow Contemporary Art Center Winzavod with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Photos from the project were nominated in 2011, 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2021 in the American International Colour Awards.

This project that have been covered by several newspapers, magazines and technolgy websites, like the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the French newspaper Libération, that have made articles about this project, besides being interviewed to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like being news in Reflex, was the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012.

Because of the subjects of this projects, Violet Blue, "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covered this same project and had photos published in "nude art photography" book.

TL;DR. Images in scope, debated to death, dozens upon dozens of times. Deletion requester, an uploader of crude drawings of porn seems, do to previous deletion requests closed as keep, to have a personal grudge against this photos, for whatever reason. Tm (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep, see guideline COM:NOTCENSORED and policy COM:CENSOR. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Chrysler California Cruiser.jpg

This image appears to be a flickrwash (not own work by the flickr account owner) just like his next image. Leoboudv (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete I've tried to find a definitive original source for the image, but it seems to be some promo image, thus non-free. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - The flickr stream shows piles of images that are clearly scans of marketing material, and all are marked with a CC license. It's pretty clear that the flickr user has just defaulted their uploads to CC license with no regard to the actual copyright. This image looks like a marketing image. No good reason to believe the flick user is the copyright holder. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2025 (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.

File:Barcelona SC.png

Copyrighted logo. ✎kovox90 04:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:18, 6 March 2017 (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.

File:Barcelona SC.png

Unclear license, probably a copyrighted logo and a re-upload of previous deleted files. Here, here, and here are previous deletions. Edjoerv (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Barcelona SC.png

File:Rising Nuclear Flag.svg

Out of scope: unused, somewhat offensive fictitious flag (Japanese naval ensign + radioactivity symbol). Omphalographer (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Will it nuke? 2806:2F0:9101:8232:A1E8:438E:A711:9C94 20:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Fluttershy.webp

appears to be blank image, and would probably be out of scope and/or copyivo if not Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mehmed Şərafəddin Əfəndi.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Seyfullah Esin.jpg

Wrong license Yousiphh (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep corrected to PD-Israel. --RAN (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2025/05/19

May 19

Files uploaded by Castroonthemoon (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Lim Natee (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Zemen (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Mpodgurschii (talk · contribs)

Files on GLAM at Keralam - Museum of History and Heritage

Files uploaded by Impracticaljokeman (talk · contribs)

Panels in Corezzo

Files uploaded by Мельников (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Klariniou (talk · contribs)

Pixel-for-pixel sprite recreations in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology)

Files in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology)

File:Zelda.jpg 2