Commons:Deletion requests/Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India|year=2024|month=May|day=08}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India}} at the end of today's log.
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.

Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India[edit]

Deletion requested under the following grounds:

  • All these files are images, e.g. in jpg/png formats. This is a data license; image formats are not included in the approved list.
  • This license is applicable, only for Govt-generated data sets published under NDSAP and through the OGD Platform. If not originally released on the OGD platform (https://data.gov.in) by the originator department under this licence, it is not applicable.
  • None of these files were published in the OGD platform; and all are in non-compatible formats.
  • Detailed discussion of the relevant license rules can be seen at the end of the template talk page.

Hrishikes (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are currently 2,568 files in this category, but many files which have been approved are in the same case. Category:GODL-India has currently 125,295 files. Yann (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Template talk:GODL-India. Yann (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this on COM:VPC#Government Open Data License - India. Yann (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As to the first item, the license says: “Data” means a representation of information, numerical compilations and observations, documents, facts, maps, images, charts, tables and figures, concepts in digital and/or analog form, and includes metadata, that is all information about data, and/or clarificatory notes provided by data provider(s), without which the data concerned cannot be interpreted or used. And one of the things not included are official insignia, inherently image-like objects, so I think images are included just fine, despite the formats list. Presumably they did not need to list image formats as most all of them are already open (and things like maps, also explicitly listed, would not fall into that format list either). To me, as long as the license validly applied to images (be it explicitly or through the OGD platform), they should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: -- There are actually a set of three documents: the policy, the Impletentation Guidelines, and the license. All the practical aspects are dealt with in the Imp. Guidelines. Definition of data in the license includes images, because images can form part of a data set. Isolated images are excluded because image formats are not part of the approved list. Approved formats are given in Section 3.2 of the Imp. Guidelines; please have a look. Hrishikes (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The legal code is the license, and just the license. It says images are included in the definition of "data", whenever you see the word "data" used. They are not excluded. Implementation guidelines do not alter the license. Images can be licensed under that, just like maps. The data format stuff is just for those types of data applicable to those formats -- and are labeled *guidelines*, not absolute rules. So images *can* be licensed, as can maps, as far as I can see. The policy may cover when the license applies. But nothing in the guidelines would alter the license, I don't think, so the format stuff is a red herring to me. Now, the license does include images protected by trademark and other intellectual property laws, and I do wonder if publicity rights are included in that for photos of people. But images are expressly included in the types of works it is possible to license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: -- How are you defining "legal code"? This is not law, not being enacted by the Parliament. This is just a free license from various departments of the Govt. of India. Implementation Guidelines do not alter the license, true enough. But this Guidelines is the manual for Govt departments, signifying that no isolated image, in jpg/png format, has so far been released under GODL. The license may have provision for it, as you say, but it has not been practically done (Govt departments won't and can't violate the Guidelines issued by the nodal agency). Hrishikes (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A copyright license is the legal framework for a re-user. Those determine the actual rules. If an entity which owns copyright says "this image is licensed under the GODL", then it's licensed under those terms, and the guidelines have nothing to do with that. There is nothing in the license which prevents images from being licensed, in fact they are explicitly allowed. The guidelines are more that data (which can be) should be in machine-readable formats as much as possible, not say image scans of data and not proprietary formats (such as Excel). I don't think those concerns typically arise with images, where the typical formats are already as open as you need. The guidelines do not define what can and cannot be licensed -- just best practice for when you are providing data under the license.
Basically, I don't think the guidelines or any of its text enters into the deletion discussion here at all, unless something in the policy or license expressly names limitations which the guidelines can define. The question to me is mainly does that license (which is free) actually apply to the works. The policy probably does indicate what works may be assumed to be under that license by default, though it's always possible for someone to apply that license regardless (provided they have the legal rights to do so -- if authority was delegated to individual departments, etc.). That is probably the area I'd focus on, and I have not read the policy in-depth, so I'm not really sure. There could be questions on any images covered by other intellectual property rights, per the license. But in general, the license defines the term "data" (wherever that word is used) to also include images, and maps. It is not at all limited to data you can put in a CSV file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about practicalities. If Govt departments are not allowed to release isolated images under GODL (#3.2 of I.G.) or they are not allowed to release anything under GODL outside the OGD platform (#4.0 of I.G.), then how would that legal framework of the license come into play? And then how can we assume that items not originally published in OGD site are under GODL? Other Govt websites (other than OGD) enjoy Govt copyright over their products under #17(d) of the Indian Copyright Act, valid for 60 years. If those items (except as provided under #52(1)(q) of ICA), are reproduced in Commons, that would amount to infringement of copyright as provided by the ICA. How can we assume that an executive notification like GODL can supersede an act of the Parliament like the ICA so that reproducing scores of images from various non-OGD Govt websites, without any explicit release under GODL, won't amount to copyright infringement? Hrishikes (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, nothing in the guidelines determines what they are allowed or not allowed to do. They are *guidelines*. If there is something in the *policy*, i.e. the government is not delegating copyright authority in particular situations, then that could be different. But nothing in the guideline is a rule or has any real legal effect, as far as I can tell. Provided a department has copyright authority, they can release under the GODL or any other license they wish, whether that is through the OGD or not. That is just the preferred way, as far as I can tell. Nothing in the guidelines can restrict copyright, unless that is expressly part of the license. The policy would determine when the license applies, or can apply, I would imagine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "guideline" is merely officialese; it is mandatory for the Govt departments, and has been provided for in #12(c) of the policy. I think you won't be able to show even a single image, in png/jpg, to be explicitly licensed under GODL by the originator department. None of the images under the deletion proposal was explicitly licensed under GODL. So please explain why the copyright infringement provisions of the Indian Copyright Act won't apply. Hrishikes (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't read it that way at all. The policy requires departments to provide data sets under that license on data.in.gov, but it also says that the data is still owned and managed by each department, so I don't see any other limitation on what a department can do. 12(c) of the policy simply says that guidelines will be produced, but does not confer any additional rulemaking to it. The argument for deletion is basically, are the files licensed under a free license. The license *can* apply to images, so if the license applies, it is fine. The guidelines do not determine that whatsoever. Now, it may well be that we can only assume the license for stuff downloaded from data.gov.in. They have an "infographics" section there, so those .pngs are licensed fine. But it may well be that we can't simply assume the license for data from anywhere else. But if a department, in addition to stuff they supply to data.gov.in, also explicitly licenses works under the GODL separately, that should be OK, since it appears they do have copyright authority over their own works. But we would have to show that I think, and can not be assumed this applies to all government works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: -- So, in your opinion, departments, being owners, can release their data outside the NDSAP under GODL, including even isolated images, and GODL can be assumed when the data is downloaded from the OGD platform, but not assumable when from other sites. And the Implementation Guidelines is "best practice" only, because #12(c) of the policy did not make it mandatory. So I'll answer one-by-one.

  • GODL is part of NDSAP, see the heading of the GODL notification. Therefore, if data is published outside the NDSAP, this license is not applicable. Owner departments can definitely publish their data outside the NDSAP, but then they cannot use the license of NDSAP.
  • GODL cannot be "assumed" even in the OGD platform. It is explicitly stated even there. See this example: 1. You will see this declaration on the left side Catalog Info pane, "Released Under: National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP)". This declaration must exist for GODL to apply, even in the OGD platform.
  • The Implementation Guidelines is not "best practice". In your words, "But nothing in the guideline is a rule or has any real legal effect, as far as I can tell." No, the guideline is not a "rule". In India, "Rules" specify the implementation of an "Act", e.g. s:Index:Indian Copyright Rules 2013.djvu. The I.G. provides for the implementation of a Policy; so it cannot be declared as a Rule. Like the policy, it is executive, not legislative. So, yes, no legal effect. Does not mean that it can be bypassed. It can have disciplinary effect for Govt. employees in case of violation, being a directive from higher authority. Specifically mentioning it as mandatory is superfluous. If you think that the I.G. does not matter and should not feature in a deletion discussion, then examples should be provided (specified below) to prove that the I.G. can be bypassed.
  • The purpose of the GODL license has been explained at the end of #1 (Preamble) of the license notification: While, the appropriate open formats and related aspects for implementation of the Policy has been defined in the "NDSAP Implementation Guidelines" prepared by an inter-ministerial Task Force constituted by the National Informatics Centre, the open license for data sets published under NDSAP and through the OGD Platform remained unspecified till now. This clarifies as under:
    • Appropriate formats are given in the IG. (Footer link given to #3.2 of I.G.)
    • After IG was issued, only the license remained unspecified, and then the notification proceeds to specify it.
    • GODL is "the open license for data sets published under NDSAP and through the OGD Platform". That is what had remained unspecified, and that is what the GODL notification specifies.
  • If you disagree to the above, then you should come up with examples
    • where an image (png/jpg) has been explicitly licensed under GODL
    • where anything at all has been explicitly licensed under GODL outside the purview of NDSAP.
  • Anyway, as you also concurred that GODL is not assumable if data is from non-OGD sites; and as all the images under the deletion proposal are from non-OGD sites, without any explicit release under NDSAP, so, can it be presumed that you have no objection to this particular deletion proposal? If not, then please specify your objections to this particular proposal.

Hrishikes (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There is no real difference between files not yet reviewed, and files already reviewed (i.e. Category:GODL-India). So the title of the DR is a bit misleading. This discussion concerns all files currently on Commons under the GODL. These files are from the Indian Navy and Army forces, the Archaeological Survey of India, the Reserve Bank of India (currency), the Indian Space Research Organisation, etc. AFAIK, none of these files come from https://data.gov.in Regards, Yann (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hrishikes: GODL is a copyright license, pure and simple. A copyright owner can choose to use that to copyright works they have the right to license. There is nothing in the wording of that license which says it can only be used under NDSAP, just that it was created for that purpose. The license also explicitly can apply to images, by its own wording. There is nothing in the wording which makes it inapplicable to any sort of work, really -- it is a free license, pure and simple. If a copyright owner chooses to apply it, the work is free and is fine here. Any license can absolutely be used standalone unless there are restrictions delineated, and the only restrictions are given in sections 4 and 7 of the license. The wording in the guidelines cannot be read the same way as a license -- if the license applies, the work is free, regardless of any text in the guidelines. The preamble of the license does mention the policy, but mentions no restrictions based on it -- simply that it was the reason for the license being created.
Now, it may be that the policy and guidelines speak to whether the work was likely to actually be licensed, given that both would govern behavior of the departments. The statement "Released Under: National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP)" does certainly imply that the GODL applies, but it is not necessary as far as I can tell -- I see nothing in the license which says that is mandatory. data.gov.in also states that All datasets/resources including metadata published on data.gov.in are licensed under the Government Open Data License - India -- so that is an explicit statement. Maybe the infographics are not "resources", but that is a blanket license for that site, certainly, and the default assumed license for any datasets or resources. The policy itself states that it was intended to apply to all sharable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various Ministries / Departments / Subordinate offices / organizations / agencies of Government of India. Remember, the word "data" (again per policy definition) includes documents, maps, images, charts, and items in analog form. So anything in that list can be licensed under the GODL under the policy. That does also seem to say the policy could apply no matter where the data is, which may be behind a lot of the assumptions on licensing here. I'm not completely sure we should assume that it basically applies to all government works though. I'm sure you have more understanding of actual practice than me in India, but really the license alone defines the "free" aspect of the work, and I see nothing in there which makes restrictions based on wording of the policy or guidelines. It mentions them, but the actual rights being conferred do not seem to be restricted based on them. The policy and guidelines, to me, more speak to what we can assume that the license applies to by default. But a copyright owner can certainly use any license it wants (CC-BY-SA, GODL, etc.) to license works it owns, so if they did explicitly apply it, the works should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: -- What you are saying is mere theorizing. Saying again and again that it can happen does not make it true. So many things can happen. Asteroids can strike the earth, earthquakes can happen, tsunamis can happen, dinosaurs can be cloned. When they actually happen, then only they become facts, not in the stage of can happen. Your theorizing is also like that. GODL can be standalone outside NDSAP, isolated images can be licensed under GODL - these are mere theory. Maybe they can happen, but they are not actually happening. They are not practically true as long as you do not come up with proofs. Irrespective of any blanket license in the OGD platform, uploader departments follow the system of explicit release under NDSAP -- I have given you proof of that. If you cannot come up with evidence (as I have already specified) in support of your theory, then I fail to see how your theorizing is relevant to a practical matter like whether to keep or delete files. Therefore my humble request to you is that you should look for some evidence that what you are speculating is actually happening. And till then, please desist from unnecessary and useless theorizing. Till you offer contrary evidence, the following are the facts:
  • Files do not get licensed under GODL if not originally published in the OGD platform. Therefore no such file exists.
  • Images in png/jpg format do not get licensed under GODL. Therefore no such image exists.
  • Government departments follow the system of explicit release under NDSAP/GODL (proof given). Therefore, when NDSAP/GODL is not explicit, it cannot be assumed.
NDSAP is being implemented in a phased manner. In spite of a larger scope in policy/license, the government departments are currently uploading the following types of data under NDSAP/GODL (#3.1 of the Implementation Guidelines):
  • 1. Primary Data e.g. Population Census, Education Census, Economic Survey, etc.
  • 2. Processed/Value Added Data e.g. Budget, Planning, etc.
  • 3. Data Generated through delivery of Government Services e.g. Income Tax Collection, MNREGA wage distribution etc.
  • Although the policy/license is sufficiently broad-spectrum for future needs, data other than the above are not currently uploaded under this policy. Therefore, data that do not fit into the above three categories are currently not under GODL.
  • Therefore, all files under current proposal are suitable for deletion.
Hrishikes (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hrishikes: Hi,
As I have mentioned above, the title of this DR is a bit misleading. Could you please confirm if your DR applies to all files already licensed under the GODL on Commons, as none of these files come from https://data.gov.in.
Most of the pictures under GODL we already have come from the Navy, Army, and Air Force departments. These already had a near free license before the creation of GODL, so it seems only a clarification and generalisation of the licensing policy of these departments.
You must address these points in your arguments. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: -- I am now traveling. I'll respond later after studying the matter. Regards. Hrishikes (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: -- I have checked those three websites.
COPYRIGHT POLICY

Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

  • There are restrictions within the above policy, so compatibility with our projects need to be assessed. Derivatives are not allowed, except format change. Use in "misleading context" is prohibited, which probably includes commercial use. So it is basically ND-NC.
  • I did not find equivalent Army or Navy policy. Please give links.
  • Anyway, these policies cannot be put under the name "GODL". There is no evidence that GODL has been used as a stand-alone license, outside NDSAP, by Govt departments. So, the language of these copyright policies can be used to create another template and given a suitable name (say, EdictGov-India-Military or something of the sort, although these are not edicts).
  • My DR is for the category as mentioned in the title, but, by extension, it will apply to other GODL-licensed media here, I think.
  • Please also see Template talk:GODL-India#Some expert opinion.
Regards. Hrishikes (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hrishikes and Clindberg: We have {{Indian navy}} which is rather deprecated in favor of GODL. There also were numerous discussions about the Air Force and similar policies, and it is understood that the restriction is not a copyright restriction. Until now there is a consensus that the GODL applies to content from http://pib.nic.in/. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... many of the files licensed GODL were converted from other licenses. Those may be preferable to convert back. It's somewhat understandable given the purported scope of the NDSAP policy, but I'm not sure there is an indication that the policy is an automatic license of copyright. Rather, it seems to be a process which includes vetting for personal information and other stuff, and only after that vetting would something be licensed. I think anything marked "released under NDSAP" can be assumed to be under the GODL now, but really I do not see any specific mention of that license other than data.gov.in, so I'm not sure we can really assume the license. If there is consensus that we can treat such statements as GODL then OK I suppose, but the GODL is a specific license and those statements are really a different license. I would prefer a pretty wide consensus to leave those as GODL.
It does seem as though the copyright policy on several government websites has changed to something like the Indian Air Force one above, which may also be a reaction to the general direction of government copyrights. I would tend to agree that is a free license -- I do not read it as preventing derivative works. Indeed, "reproduction" as defined in Indian copyright law covers several types of derivative works. "Adaptation" is defined separately, and it may be arguable that the statement does not cover those, but adaptations are somewhat nonsensical for photographs in the first place as the law defines that mostly in terms of dramatic, literary, and musical works. As for the "derogatory manner", that is absolutely a reference to moral rights, not the economic right, and is a non-copyright limitation. Per the Berne convention Article 6bis, which defines moral rights, Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. So that restriction seems to simply be claiming their moral rights and nothing more. While we do prefer licensing statements to mention derivative works, often because authors don't fully consider that aspect, to me that is not as much a concern with a carefully-considered government website. Technically, if you allow reproduction with no qualifiers, you allow reproduction in commercial uses too, and reproduction of expression in derivative works. It would be better to have the word "adaptation" mentioned, but for photographs I'm not sure it's strictly necessary.
In general, I completely disagree that png/jpg files cannot be licensed under the GODL. However, I would tend to agree that the current NDSAP process is not targeting that type of data, so those are unlikely to have come through the process to be licensed GODL -- we should be able to point to a source which specified the license. I think anything which was converted from another license to GODL should be switched back, unless we get some guidance from the Indian government that we can make that assumption, or a wide consensus here says we should. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I hope to have more authoritarive opinions by the beginning of July. There is no urgency to close this anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hrishikes: you didn't read the implementation guidelines correctly. 3.2 only provides a recommendation. Formats should be open. (not closed) For images, this isn't much of an issue because the patents for JPG and GIF already expired and PNG and WEBP are open. Nobody uses JPEG2000 (and it's kinda shit anyway) and w:High Efficiency Image File Format wasn't a thing in 2014. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: -- It appears to me that you did not go through earlier discussions. I am getting weary, having to discuss the same points again and again. Anyway, here goes.
  1. The term recommended is appropriate here. A term like directed is generally used in a communication from a higher office or formation, to a lower office under its administrative command. But a "nodal agency" is subject-specific. Its superior hierarchy to its sister agencies is only in a specific subject. There is no administrative command, only subject-specific operational command. Therefore, polite words like "recommended", "requested", etc. are used. This kind of wording is otherwise known as officialese. The Implementation Guidelines is not a communication to the general public. It is an inter-departmental communication to the implementing agencies, i.e., other government departments. So the language is appropriate. It does not mean that other departments can deviate from the given guideline at will. If any department wants to deviate, they will need to get special permission or approval from the nodal agency (NIC) for doing so.
  2. No department has deviated so far. Even within the OGD platform (for which the GODL license was created), every dataset is explicitly released under the NDSAP, the policy under which the license operates. No file has been released outside the OGD platform, by the originator department, under GODL. If you disagree, give a single example, where anything has been explicitly released under GODL outside the data.gov.in website. A single example will suffice.
  3. Copyright expiry of image formats has no relevance for this discussion. The discussion is about whether anything in png/jpg format has actually been released, explicitly, under GODL. [Explicit release is done even within the OGD platform (irrespective of whether explicitness is required for every file, this is the system followed).] There has been no such release. If you disagree, give an example of a single item, in png/jpg, released explicitly under GODL by the originator department. A single example will suffice.
Hrishikes (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this image be under the license? (From here.). Or does that not count as a "resource" on the data.in.gov site?
In general though, I tend to agree that images outside of data.gov.in almost certainly have never been tagged with the GODL license. It would seem that most of them have been switched from other licenses, which are probably free but a bit more nebulous, so sometimes get challenged. We should probably switch those back. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: -- That is not uploaded by originator department, but a blog written by site admin (OGD PMU Team). The dataset link is "explicitly" given in the blog: 1. That is the item released under GODL and that is in CSV format. In the homepage of the OGD platform, you will find two different copyright notices:
  1. © 2012-2015 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA : All rights reserved except published datasets/resources and metadata.
  2. All datasets/resources including metadata published on data.gov.in are licensed under the Government Open Data License - India
Dataset link is specified in the blog. So the blog itself is not a dataset. Whole of it, including the image, is copyrighted, as per sl. no. 1 above, and not under GODL. Hrishikes (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a dataset sure, but why isn't it a resource ? It even says "resource title" at the bottom, which matches the title of that page, not the dataset. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: -- Resource means datasets and apps, as per #7.2 of the Imp. Guidelines. Hrishikes (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment we must have a set of websites clearly specified whether it falls under GODL-INDIA or no. Also since India has federal system of Government, does State Government sites also come under GODL-INDIA?. (This is regarding File:Chaudhary Jagjit Singh.png which I came across while reviewing) --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 12:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing a Google search, I was unable to find any reference to the license except on data.in.gov, other than documents specifically about the open data program. I think other levels of government are supposed to follow the procedures generally, but nothing is automatically under the GODL from the sounds of it -- each department reviews items and ones meeting the criteria get released. I don't think there is any automatic application of the license. And it sounds like they can review stuff gradually. So, like the UK's OGL, you'd have to actually see something explicitly released under the license -- nothing can be assumed. I believe most uploads here currently using that license were switched from other, probably valid licenses though, under the assumption the GODL was automatic, which I think is the core problem. They need to be switched back, in my opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: This is an overly broad request to delete images that even if {{GODL-India}} is invalid other licenses would be acceptable. Just one of many examples I could find: File:Admiral Karambir Singh, PVSM, AVSM, ADC.jpg would fit under {{Indian navy}} if GODL is not correct. To delete them all right now when many of them would be fine under a different license would be an immense detriment to Commons. There is also continued discussion on Template talk:GODL-India. For the time being the only proper way to close this discussion is with no action while continued discussion continues. If consensus arises that shows that these images are not ok then a DR can be reopened and dealt with quickly after otherwise acceptable images are weeded out. --Majora (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Media_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India&oldid=403215567"