Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_PL.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Волжск.jpg){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
A misspell at the file name --פיתמר (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Yann (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Building seems to be more than 100 years old, no reason was given to why this violates no-FOP of Albania.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)- Keep per Darwin --Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep clearly an old building. --Terfili (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- It look like a recent building...if its over 100 or near 100 years, please provide an evidence..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- "a recent building"?? Are you kidding me? No need to provide a source in this case, I'm just going to assume that the admins here have enough common sense to realize that this is clearly an architectural style of the late 19th/early 20th century. --Terfili (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- It look like a recent building...if its over 100 or near 100 years, please provide an evidence..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as above --Vinie007 (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy - the picture itself is copyvio Jcb (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
*
Keep - Frankly, what is the point of claiming no-FOP on a 19th century monastery?-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep That's no recent architecture, architect should be death for long enough. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide a link that support your claim (19th centuary monastery)--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Even a basic research on the Franciscan Gjuhadol monastery and church at Shkodër will show that it was well established in the city already in the 19th century. Here, for instance, a monk took orders there in the 1880s. Frankly, I completely fail to see what you saw as "modern" in this building, it's clearly something from another era. I believe that this nomination, as some of the others you've made with the same theme, is frivolous and has not take the good of this project into account, quite the opposite indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- All assumptions will be based on the available information's within the common's only and its the responsibility of the uploader to provide evidences that this was built on 19th century...as per your link, its not shown, So please provide a link, that shows the exact age of this building...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The "exact age" of this building is not needed here, since the monastery existed already in the 19th century. Frankly, I fail to see what is your point in so adamantly trying to delete valuable content from Commons which is not under any reasonable doubt of copyright violation. You would made a much greater service to this project and its ambient if you would stick with the cases where no-FOP really is an issue, instead of sending everything to deletion (including a New York building) and then see what comes out of it. That is a terrible way of proceeding here.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- All assumptions will be based on the available information's within the common's only and its the responsibility of the uploader to provide evidences that this was built on 19th century...as per your link, its not shown, So please provide a link, that shows the exact age of this building...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Even a basic research on the Franciscan Gjuhadol monastery and church at Shkodër will show that it was well established in the city already in the 19th century. Here, for instance, a monk took orders there in the 1880s. Frankly, I completely fail to see what you saw as "modern" in this building, it's clearly something from another era. I believe that this nomination, as some of the others you've made with the same theme, is frivolous and has not take the good of this project into account, quite the opposite indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide a link that support your claim (19th centuary monastery)--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, I took the trouble to find the actual age of this building - It's from 1875. Amuse yourself with the sources. I really wish that frivolous DRs as this one would stop from your part.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I got a number of links, but none of them showing the built date, provide only a single source for the age, as i can read from some link's that its 1946...Moreover you no need to question the intention of the nominator for this, if you have any complaint for such nomination's please feel free to give a note at administrator's noticeboard rather than filling the talk space--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Look, in dozens of links in that list it is said that the Franciscan Convent was created in 1875. In some of them the date is 1878, but since that date directly refers to the church, I presume that the church was built two or three years after the convent itself. I don't know where you have seen that it was built in 1946, that's a complete absurd since in that date it wasn't even a convent any more.
- Don't worry that I'll not report you on AN or some other place, but I'll repeat (and affirm that this is the proper place for that) that frivolous nominations like this one (and many others you've made) are annoying, indeed. You are forcing people to waste time researching documentation in Albanian (!!!) on obscure buildings that not even the Albanians themselves know something about, just because you are in some cavalier mission to eradicate as much as you can from countries with no-FOP. It's really annoying, and IMO not in the best interests of this project, really.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I got a number of links, but none of them showing the built date, provide only a single source for the age, as i can read from some link's that its 1946...Moreover you no need to question the intention of the nominator for this, if you have any complaint for such nomination's please feel free to give a note at administrator's noticeboard rather than filling the talk space--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, I took the trouble to find the actual age of this building - It's from 1875. Amuse yourself with the sources. I really wish that frivolous DRs as this one would stop from your part.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as above --Vinie007 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Of course this is not no-FOP, but is almost certainly a copyvio, a scan from a postcard, probably. Fabio Abazaj, the uploader, has a terrible history on uploading copyvios as own work (Captain of Hope: This only makes your DRs more frustrating and annoying, I lost a lot of time researching about this monastery, which is not no-FOP indeed, and now I find that the uploader is a copyright fraudster. I wish you were looking for copyright violations, instead of much dubious instances of no-FOP. That would be really useful.)-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy - the picture itself is copyvio Jcb (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy - the picture itself is copyvio Jcb (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy - copyvio Jcb (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy - picture itself is copyvio Jcb (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This building is not even in Albania, its Hartsdale, New York. Why don't you do a minimum of research before nominating files for deletion? This DR can be speedy closed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It came in the category of albenia, if its in new york, this can be kept..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was wrongly classified, probably because this is the Albanian church of Our Lady of Shkodra, but it's in New York.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It came in the category of albenia, if its in new york, this can be kept..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Kept, Non controversial- Building is not in Albania..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Was built in the 1930's (note the Italian-style architecture typical of buildings constructed in Albania during that period), that should be old enough. --Terfili (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Shkodra Migjeni is from 1958. And the photo is probably a copyvio as well.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- True, my bad. The article about the theater on the Albanian Wikipedia talks about the 1930's, but apparently that's the founding date of the theater as an institution, not the building itself. A quick search confirms the 1958 date [1]. In that case the building is probably not old enough regardless of other copyright issues. --Terfili (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it was build in the 1930's by the italians, the communist regime had no money to build such theaters --Vinie007 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant, really. The picture is a copyvio itself, and will soon be deleted, independently of the outcome of this DR. There seems to be little doubt, however, that this building is from 1958, though it is indeed reminiscent of the 30's fascist architecture. The soviet taste for buildings was never that distant from the fascist, tough I sincerely hold the later in much better taste than the former, politics apart.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Shkodra Migjeni is from 1958. And the photo is probably a copyvio as well.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The image is (C)ARR on its Flickr source http://www.flickr.com/photos/improvvisazione/240501858/. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from Flickr Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
License on Flickr is incompatible with Commons (no derivative works). Someone notified me on my talk page that I'd mislabelled this as Flickr-review passed. I suspect I saw the two icons and mistook it for the CC-BY-SA license. I doubt that the license has changed in the last three days since it's been up for almost two years and many of the other photos are licensed this way. So I'm reversing my Flickr review. The uploader can contact the Flickr account holder if they wish to inquire about re-licensing the image with a license that is accepted on Commons. Chaser (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Martin H. (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Terribly low quality of not notable people of a not notable company. Self promotion, unusable even. If their shows are like their pictures, I understand why they are not notable. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
unused nearly private image - out of scope (good crepes, but advertisement) (french users may see it different?!) Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (cheers!) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host. This photo is not used in any Wikimedia project. High Contrast (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an error somewhere. The image does not appear. Treehill (fr) 09:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: corrupted svg Mbdortmund (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. His own article was deleted from en wikipedia. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. May be a joke or an insult about him. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. Unused. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture. Not even very funny. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Here we are again. Private picture of a, very probably, facebooked teenager. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of the same not notable person. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
no educational content. Broc (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scopeù Broc (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
looks like a violation of copyright Broc (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image out of project scope Broc (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from an artwork. The photograph doesn't seem to be the derives work's copyright holder: it looks like a collective artwork. Dereckson (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing to copyright, bricks and letter's..??--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's not a work of art, it is a wall made of bricks with the donors name on each brick, adorned with simple geometric shapes (stars, hearts etc). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Tony -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment I lean towards keep only because the bricks seem to be painted by small children and there is little creativity involved. Its not the work of a professional artist. Its really very simple painting here. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
probable personal image, no educational content Broc (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Most likely copyvio: scan from a old newspaper. P199 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Most likely copyvio: scan from old newspaper. P199 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private and promotional picture of not notable people from a not notable company. Self promotion, apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a scanned image, not "own work". Possibly not in PD LMLM (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture. Unused. According to the tile, is a CV picture. Are we looking for an employee? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture. Unused. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Absurd low size and quality. Private picture. Unused. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Strange digital error, some black stripes, in this picture. Unusable this way. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep there is nothing wrong with the image (see the full resolution version), this is a bug in the mediawiki thumbnail generator: Bugzilla: 24854. MKFI (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a version without CMYK color profile; no more black lines in thumbnails, but the color tone has changed. MKFI (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Same strange digital error, some black stripes, in this picture also. Unusable this way. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep there is nothing wrong with the image (see the full resolution version), this is a bug in the mediawiki thumbnail generator: Bugzilla: 24854. MKFI (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a version without CMYK color profile; no more black lines in thumbnails, but the color tone has changed. MKFI (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Same not notable person that evidently like to be insulted. Too much episodes of The Big Bang Theory perhaps. If someone joke about me as "nerdy engineer" I would not laugh at all. Not even the humorist, when I have finished with him. Out of scope? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: Commons is no private image host; use flickr instead High Contrast (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
_PL.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_PL.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
vector version available- redundant Hoodinski (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
_PL.png){kind=link}
Deleted: All relevant information has been moved to the new and better .svg-file which is now widely used. High Contrast (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
_PL.png){kind=link}
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's the user photo, you could at least have waited some time to see if it would be used or not.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- You think that 2 days are not enough to add an image in your user page? --Broc (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal image, out of project scope High Contrast (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
simple text, no need for an image. not used anywhere Broc (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The person uploaded his own article. promotional. Demmo (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Mbdortmund High Contrast (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used an desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used an desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used an desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
no longer used an desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for 2D works in Japan. 84.61.191.235 12:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - text in pdf, maybe promotional (i didn't read it) Slfi (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo, maybe copyvio Slfi (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a logo of an organization protected by copyright. The author claims to be part of it, but there isn´t any evidence. 79.150.60.173 18:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 23:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope/private photo Slfi (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional image Slfi (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional wallpaper Slfi (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, maybe copyvio Slfi (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - images in pdf Slfi (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
source web, missing permission Slfi (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Permission for a free use is missing High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
bad made screenshot (tooltip is cutt-off) I doubt the uploader is the copyright-holder. Avron (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotion? small size, not used Avron (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
very small size, not description, not usable Avron (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
comment: obviously this is the newspaper with a report about the "Roswell Accident" Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
test? no educational value, not uesed Avron (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete - unusable for other users Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
and File:Jack Cooper.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The file is a en:derivative work. Theleftorium (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work from modern art. Sculptor permission with Commons:OTRS needed. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, possibly personal attac, → out of scope. ~ Jahobr (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. ~ Jahobr (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - self promotion Slfi (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"German military photo captured by US Army". Possibly public domain in the United States due to its status of seized enemy property - although this information isnt confirmed by any source information. Not public domain in the country of origin. Martin H. (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a couple of guys. Not notable people at first sight and description doesn't help. Bad quality also. Out of scope? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- DeletePer nom. Florent Pécassou (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Another private picture of a couple of guys. Not notable people also, at least, apparently. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom Florent Pécassou (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture. No educational purpose. Unused. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a guy pretending to look smart. Out of scope. And he doesn't look smart at all. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of not notable person. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of not notable person. No educational purpose. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Per nom Florent Pécassou (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
unlikely own work, no permission Yann (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
189.104.228.82 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep due to no rationale or reason given. Lankiveil (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
- Speedy Keep. Why delete the photo? I thought it was part of a SLV Queensland project with Wikimedia? Nickm57 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown band (birthday party) - out of scope, private image Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Logotype Ainali (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted logo - no permission Lymantria (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host. This photo is not used in any Wikimedia project. High Contrast (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Plain apartment building without any architectural originality (and knowing Albania, probably even without much architectural design or even planning), which are exempted from the FOP-rule on Commons by standing convention as you are aware of ([2]). --Terfili (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Essaouira.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I share Terfili's opinion. --Albinfo (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't make a conclusion based on admin jcb's keep's, it will be re opened again, after some time...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just so you know, since it sounds like you're planning to reopen that request: usually when you reopen a deletion request, you should bring new arguments and reasons to the table. It's not really good style to keep requesting something until you find someone who agrees with you. --Terfili (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- It can happen, and there will be user's who knows better about Freedom of Panorama...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just so you know, since it sounds like you're planning to reopen that request: usually when you reopen a deletion request, you should bring new arguments and reasons to the table. It's not really good style to keep requesting something until you find someone who agrees with you. --Terfili (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't make a conclusion based on admin jcb's keep's, it will be re opened again, after some time...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I tend to agree that the building (or the part of it that is seen) doesn't seem to pass the threshold of originality in order to grant a copyright. I don't know if the colours could be an issue, however.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus Jcb (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Logo is too complicated to go under PD licenses plus it is under the wrong license anyhow Good twins (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused file with no educational purpose. ←fetchcomms 16:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
=== File:Hôtel_de_ville_de_Vlora.jpg ===
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - 19th century building, no explanation was given on why it violates FOP in Albania.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Darwin --Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep clearly an old building. --Terfili (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as above --Vinie007 (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/File:IGLESIA DE GUADALUPE
This drawing was made in 1925, as noted. PD-Old does not count 70 ears from creation but from author's death; we do not have it, and the time frame is too short (the man who made this work in 1925 should have been dead by 1941; living 16 years more since a certain point is not unlikely) Cambalachero (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment A. Lubkin, probably Abraham Lubkin but some other sources refer to him as russian, was active in Argentina as portraits drawer at the end of XIX century and the beginning of XXth. His last known work is dated 1930. No mention about his death anywhere. Actually, I would keep it. But I'm not an expert in such a copyright issue.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
unused nearly private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France for modern art like this. Leoboudv (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. This is not a FOP case: it's an artwork from en:Abode of Chaos / fr:Demeure du Chaos, not a public space artwork. --Dereckson (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: As I have no strong feelings in this case, I'll let the closing Admin decide this DR. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
duplicate File:BSicon hRP2oW.svg Tuvalkin (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- You should only add {{duplicate|File:BSicon hRP2oW.svg}} on that page. I did it. mickit 20:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 13:31, 9 June 2011 by Shizhao, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
map of mtr 124.107.125.54 07:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no reason given. Does not appear to be a problem Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The miniature does not appear, only the larger format can be seen + wrong name Treehill (fr) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: appears to be duplicate of File:Continental_European_Union_geological_map-fr.png Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks to be a hoax. My Swedish is not that great but it looks to be a bit crude, and the text hasn't been changed since this page was created. Lankiveil (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- ↑ Surface & symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and the architecture of Italian rationalism, page 74. Thomas L. Schumacher. Princeton Architectural Press, 1991. ISBN 9780910413763
- ↑ Annali dell'Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze, Volumes 1-2 page 37, Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze. 1976
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- ↑ Surface & symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and the architecture of Italian rationalism, page 74. Thomas L. Schumacher. Princeton Architectural Press, 1991. ISBN 9780910413763
- ↑ Annali dell'Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze, Volumes 1-2 page 37, Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze. 1976
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- ↑ Surface & symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and the architecture of Italian rationalism, page 74. Thomas L. Schumacher. Princeton Architectural Press, 1991. ISBN 9780910413763
- ↑ Annali dell'Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze, Volumes 1-2 page 37, Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze. 1976
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- ↑ Surface & symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and the architecture of Italian rationalism, page 74. Thomas L. Schumacher. Princeton Architectural Press, 1991. ISBN 9780910413763
- ↑ Annali dell'Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze, Volumes 1-2 page 37, Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze. 1976
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- ↑ Surface & symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and the architecture of Italian rationalism, page 74. Thomas L. Schumacher. Princeton Architectural Press, 1991. ISBN 9780910413763
- ↑ Annali dell'Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze, Volumes 1-2 page 37, Istituto e museo di storia della scienza di Firenze. 1976
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why you have chose what seems to be a 19th century building to claim no-FOP. However, incidentally, the image itself (not the building) seems to be a copyvio.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 01:03, 5 June 2011 by ZooFari, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Building seems to be more than 100 years old, no reason was given to why this violates no-FOP of Albania.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is a 1877 building, for Heavens sake. I really don't know what's your point in trying to delete such valuable content from Commons.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keepand where at the end is the difference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:ALB 20070713 img 1232.jpg? --Albinfo (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as above --Vinie007 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Restored per {{FoP-Albania}}: there's now freedom of panorama in Albania. Taivo (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a view of the city, the presence of the buildings looks to be incidental.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per Dawinius. --Terfili (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as above --Vinie007 (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Restored per {{FoP-Albania}}: there's now freedom of panorama in Albania. Taivo (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - City view, inclusion of modern buildings is incidental and thus allowed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- These kind of city views are called 'panorama'..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't know what you mean with that comment. A view of a park in Tirana is also a panorama. If the inclusion of architectural works is incidental and not the main subject of the picture, it's OK in Albania.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- These kind of city views are called 'panorama'..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - general view of the skyline, inclusion of any particular buildings is incidental. --Terfili (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as above --Vinie007 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Sufficient age: This and several other buildings along the Bulevardi of Tirana were build in the interwar period. Note the Italian-style architecture, which are typical for buildings constructed in Tirana during that time. After that came several wars and then communist rule, and this is clearly not an example of communist-era architecture. --Terfili (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - As seen in this link, the architect of the Parliament of Albania (initially built to house the Army Officers Club) was unknown as recently as 2005. According to the Albanian Law, works who remain anonymous for 70 years after publication enter the public domain. No-FOP doesn't applies here, since the building was built in 1923 (completed in 1924), so it's PD since 1994.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per darwin --Vinie007 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it's not only the building, it shows clear the park in front. Also this building is build by Italians (1930s) --Vinie007 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this picture shows clear the parking problem of Tirana and the main boulevard. This building is finished in 1930S so keep. --Vinie007 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this picture includes other elements rather then only the building --Vinie007 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this picture includes other elements rather then only the building (f.e. the lana river and the jean d'arc boulevard) --Vinie007 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - General view of a group of buildings in a neighbourhood, none of them with any particular feature. I doubt any of them would be subject to copyright, this "design" is pretty much standard in any part of the world.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - No way that facade meets the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright. --Terfili (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any architectural work creates its own copyright...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ridiculous claim. The picture shows a variety of buildings, trees, streetlamps, umbrellas, wires, and many more things. The fact that the file is named after a particular facade is simply because that is the most relevant element for educational purposes, as opposed to the clouds in the upper left corner for example. Hence, the building is not the exclusive subject of the photo. This request also demonstrates an ignorance of construction realities in the 90's and 2000's in Albania. These buildings, and 95% of all other buildings in Tirana built during this period, were probably designed and built illegally by some squatter, his relatives, and friends who helped out. No one bothered to hire architects or draw blue prints, much less bother to submit a request for a building permit. For there to be copyright, someone must be able to claim copyright. And the chances of anyone being able to claim copyright on the design of these buildings, is somewhere between nil and non-existent. --Terfili (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a comment over the analysis of this image, No comment for Hence, the building is not the exclusive subject of the photo this statement also, as the picture shows itself, all other claims related to the copyright will be considered as precautionary principles..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, not a precautionary principle, just commons sense of looking at the photo and seeing that it portrays numerous elements (4-5 different buildings, trees, lamps, electric wiring, a kiosk, umbrellas, etc), not any particular work of architecture in particular. You can't even see the entire facade. Precautionary principle would be if I were to say: "oh, don't worry, the building was designed by good old Bashkim, who won't mind". Note for example, the faded election posters in the lower right corner. Even though these fall under copyright (they have a photo on them), they do not make the photo as a whole a copyright violation, since they are not the primary subject of the photograph. --Terfili (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Such kind of non-subjective elements (tree, electric wires, kiosk etc..) will be measure under de minimis...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, not a precautionary principle, just commons sense of looking at the photo and seeing that it portrays numerous elements (4-5 different buildings, trees, lamps, electric wiring, a kiosk, umbrellas, etc), not any particular work of architecture in particular. You can't even see the entire facade. Precautionary principle would be if I were to say: "oh, don't worry, the building was designed by good old Bashkim, who won't mind". Note for example, the faded election posters in the lower right corner. Even though these fall under copyright (they have a photo on them), they do not make the photo as a whole a copyright violation, since they are not the primary subject of the photograph. --Terfili (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a comment over the analysis of this image, No comment for Hence, the building is not the exclusive subject of the photo this statement also, as the picture shows itself, all other claims related to the copyright will be considered as precautionary principles..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ridiculous claim. The picture shows a variety of buildings, trees, streetlamps, umbrellas, wires, and many more things. The fact that the file is named after a particular facade is simply because that is the most relevant element for educational purposes, as opposed to the clouds in the upper left corner for example. Hence, the building is not the exclusive subject of the photo. This request also demonstrates an ignorance of construction realities in the 90's and 2000's in Albania. These buildings, and 95% of all other buildings in Tirana built during this period, were probably designed and built illegally by some squatter, his relatives, and friends who helped out. No one bothered to hire architects or draw blue prints, much less bother to submit a request for a building permit. For there to be copyright, someone must be able to claim copyright. And the chances of anyone being able to claim copyright on the design of these buildings, is somewhere between nil and non-existent. --Terfili (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any architectural work creates its own copyright...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- delete Edi Rama don't deserve for keeping this advestment of him --Vinie007 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not only do the buildings have a copyright, but the mural also has a copyright -- all of which this infringes. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it's builded in 1930s --Vinie007 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
EXIF metadata gives a 2007-09-03 date. Uploader gives a 2010-04-01 date. Uploader isn't a trusted used but a French Wikipedia user contributing only to fr:Jean-Bernard Condat-related articles and stalking him (e.g. he added here a CV from the picture subject, giving as explanation the CV were captured from a public concours database. Such elements bring me to the conclusion the uploader isn't the copyright holder. --Dereckson (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of crochet artwork by Olek. Just to be clear: this is not typical crochet-- this is art in the form of crochet, so the "useful article" doctrine of copyright law doesn't apply. See Yarn bombing for more information. Exact situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olek 100pc Acrylic DumboArts-2009-09-26.jpg , which were deleted. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
copied from Greenwood Chemistry of the Elements, second edition, page 797. Perhaps re-drawn but if so, still looks identical. TCO (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- no opinion. I took my time to download nearly 200 megs of this mammoth textbook (they definitely grew in size lately ;)) and concur. Either (a) the image is, indeed, based on G&E or (b) both are based on a common source. However, the concept itself is PD, and the drawing represents the concept in the most simple fashion. It's not much different from drawings of a benzol ring: simplest graphic representation of common knowledge. I don't see a way to illustrate the concept that will be (a) sufficiently removed from G&E drawing and (b) still simple and readable. NVO (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: If we need the image, we need someone to redraw it from scratch. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
self-created work with no source to support a common recognition as "Kabylie flag": not realistically useful for an educational purpose Fanfwah (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
He can be the best chemistry teacher in the world, as stated on the description, but, without even his name we cannot verify it. He doesn't look like any recent Nobel Prize Laureate for chemistry. So, private picture of a not notable person, with all the due respect. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B6%D1%81%D0%BA.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B6%D1%81%D0%BA.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I doubt that logo of commercial company may be downloaded with common license VAP+VYK (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
_Волжск.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
_Волжск.jpg){kind=link}
{{Copyrighted free use}} doesn't seem like the right tag to use here. Jean Capart died in 1947, so a work of his from 1930 is not yet in the public domain. Absent some better evidence of {{Copyrighted free use}} permission... Powers (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation. uploader is not author. image was taken from here: http://www.leksikon-yu-mitologije.net/files/Velika_srbija.gif PANONIAN (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not the uploader either, I just modified this file. That is not, however, where the image was taken from, that much is obvious at least. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was taken from there or from some other web site where it is posted. The thing is that this map was created by Stevan Moljević in World War II and that uploader of this map is not author of the image: [3], [4], [5] It is obvious that uploader partly modified original image (which he took from some website), but nevertheless he is not original author of that work. This image is therefore not an "own work", but rather an "derivative work" of a file with questionable copyright status. This source claims that this map was published in an WW2 Chetnik pamphlet named "Naš put", which is kept in Military History Institute in Belgrade. PANONIAN (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Panonian is correct. (LAz17 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)).
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation. uploader is not author. image was taken from here: http://www.leksikon-yu-mitologije.net/files/Velika_srbija.gif PANONIAN (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- That is not where the image was taken from, that much is obvious at least. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was taken from there or from some other web site where it is posted. The thing is that this map was created by Stevan Moljević in World War II and that uploader of this map is not author of the image: [6], [7], [8] It is obvious that uploader partly modified original image (which he took from some website), but nevertheless he is not original author of that work. This image is therefore not an "own work", but rather an "derivative work" of a file with questionable copyright status. This source claims that this map was published in an WW2 Chetnik pamphlet named "Naš put", which is kept in Military History Institute in Belgrade. PANONIAN (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
fictional map - there was no serbia in atlantic ocean. this map is bad joke PANONIAN (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fictional maps are not allowed on Commons? I'm sorry you don't like the "joke", but this nomination is nonsense. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, fictional maps that do not serve any educational (or other purposes) would have no reason to be here. What purpose this map can serve? PANONIAN (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Look, just to be clear, if you want to delete it - delete it. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, fictional maps that do not serve any educational (or other purposes) would have no reason to be here. What purpose this map can serve? PANONIAN (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
One question, though: what policy are you calling upon in this AfD? If its in accordance with policy I'll support too. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - This map has little to no value. There is no way that this map can be used by anyone in any meaningful way. No projects use this map, so deleting this junk is of no harm to anyone. (LAz17 (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)).
- Delete note in COM:SCOPE, does not serve or even claim to serve any educational purpose. --ELEKHHT 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned page with no distinct function Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It certainly is not orphaned in the sense that it has valid categories? --Herby talk thyme 08:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Perfectly good gallery, well within scope -- if you think this has no distinct scope, you should spend more time in our galleries. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Derivative from a copyrighted work by J. R. R. Tolkien Rondador (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
See [9] André (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, {{Copyvio}} from account used solely to upload copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted photograph/poster Resolute (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
image used only in spam article on enwiki DS (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Photo is taken by the uploader- I don't dispute that. However, as a British coin, the copyright is owned by the Royal Mint, and this photo is a derivative work of the coin, and thus, this image is non-free. Courcelles (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It likes as a cd cover, not like an own work Ezarateesteban 22:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably not free image.
- While not there currently, TinEye reports this image was published on http://hci.iiita.ac.in, which contradicts the "no copyright" tag. Also, identical image with ownership claim on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IIIT_View.jpg (unless it was already removed) and the uploader admits it is from the website. Muhandes (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Has no educational use Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Either a copyvio or out of scope as onw art work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
No indication that 70 have passed since the author's death. Author is not identifiable, and the work has been published in 1924. Widerborst (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a postcard (see [10] for a better image) which seems to have circulated around 1923. No indication of an author is ever stated at the sources I've seen.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly of notable historic value, and one never knows who the "author" of a postcard is.
There is also something very odd going on here. User:Widerborst, the nom, is an account created in February 2011, but edited today for the first time, and their contribution was to nominate for deletion four images of clear historical and scholarly value:
- These nominations seem to be political, rather than policy-based, and the long fallow period between the creation of the account and Widerborst's first (fully accomplished) edits would seem to point to a possible sockpuppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep historic old image. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as above. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} Yann (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No indication that 70 or more years have passed since the author's death. Author is not identified, work has been published in 1919. Widerborst (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I understood it, anything published prior to 1923 is out of copyright in the U.S.
- It would be good if somebody could clarify that.
- -- 68.59.149.160 15:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - No authorship stated in the postcard. In any case, since it was published in 1919, there is a good probability that the author is dead for more than 70 years, anyway.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Publishe prior to 1919, therefore PD. Clearly of notable historic value, and one never knows who the "author" of a postcard is.
There is also something very odd going on here. User:Widerborst, the nom, is an account created in February 2011, but edited today for the first time, and their contribution was to nominate for deletion four images of clear historical and scholarly value:
- These nominations seem to be political, rather than policy-based, and the long fallow period between the creation of the account and Widerborst's first (fully accomplished) edits would seem to point to a possible sockpuppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep historic old image. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as above: {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} Yann (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No indiciation that 70 years or more have passed since author's death. Author is not identified. Work has been published in 1920. Widerborst (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Published before 1923, and therefore PD. Also, :learly of notable historic value.
There is also something very odd going on here. User:Widerborst, the nom, is an account created in February 2011, but edited today for the first time, and their contribution was to nominate for deletion four images of clear historical and scholarly value:
- These nominations seem to be political, rather than policy-based, and the long fallow period between the creation of the account and Widerborst's first (fully accomplished) edits would seem to point to a possible sockpuppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep historic old image. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as above: {{PD-old}} Yann (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Albania, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, the law does not oppose panorama pictures --Vinie007 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Read article number 12..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
*
Keep - The building seems to be more than 100 years old, no explanation was given to why this would be included in the no-FOP dispositions.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- excluding the cases when the picture is the main theme of the reproduction, broadcasting or communication and when it is used for commercial purposes. so it's exluded --Vinie007 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Sufficient age: This and several other buildings along the Bulevardi of Tirana were build in the interwar period. Note the Italian-style architecture, which are typical for buildings constructed in Tirana during that time. After that came several wars and then communist rule, and this is clearly not an example of communist-era architecture. --Terfili (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep this picture includes other elements rather then only the building and it was finished in the 30s --Vinie007 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Terfili. Yann (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No actual source information, no way to identify author, no way to confirm 70 years since the author's death have passed, missing publication date Widerborst (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Publication is clearly given as "March 1921", which makes it PD.
There is also something very odd going on here. User:Widerborst, the nom, is an account created in February 2011, but edited today for the first time, and their contribution was to nominate for deletion four images of clear historical and scholarly value:
- These nominations seem to be political, rather than policy-based, and the long fallow period between the creation of the account and Widerborst's first (fully accomplished) edits would seem to point to a possible sockpuppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep historic old image. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as above: {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} Yann (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
image is used only in spam article on en.wikipedia DS (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no eveidence of permssion to use this logo. Please see Commons:OTRS for the procedure to follow if the VFW wants to grant permission. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama is not available in KSA, please see this Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Saudi_Arabia ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Undeleted This file was deleted in error. There is nothing to copyright here. Yann (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
reedom of panorama is not available in KSA, please see this Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Saudi_Arabia All the building and facades are new ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- This mosque is centuries old, so what is new? Yann (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Almost everything you see is new. The original mosque is completely obscured by recent additions. Everything in this image, except the Kaaba and several domes, is recent. see Masjid al-Haram for details. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Info please note Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-04#File:Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg --:bdk: 15:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, again. Almost everything seen in this image is recent -- the ancient mosque is surrounded by new construction. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
oups, this page should have been created on the fr:wiki. Treehill (fr) 09:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- This appears to be a good contribution to Commons -- no need to upload it to WP:FR except for copyright question.
Question Treehill, you say this is entirely your own work -- you did not use a base map or copy from anywhere, but created this from scratch? I question this because this map was a lot of work and a from-scratch creation seems unlikely when many open-source base maps are available. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request shortly after upload, not in use, uploader uploaded a better to handle version which is in use Jcb (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Russia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.179.231 12:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The deletion request doesn't comply with the criterias, the picture can be kept on commons without doubts. Alfredovic (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Warum sollte diese Photographie gelöscht werden? Löschantrag ist absolut unverständlich. Ist es ein Antrag des russischen Geheimdienstes??? --Laban66, der Urheber (Diskussion) 18:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. 84.61.191.235 12:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I know everyone will criticize me, but my humble opinion is that it's not fair to re-open a deletion request with exactly the same reason, when an admin has decided an administrative keeping (otherwise when you close a request, you can add a template text to explain that people can appeal, but for the moment it's not applied). And we all know it's a trollesque IP who do that (mister duralex). Jeriby (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per previous DR (the duralex-troll never addresses the keep statement of the previous procedure) - Jcb (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - If there no FOP in russia, this image need to go...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
First, to Jeriby -- I have no problem with reopening a DR. We have two areas:
- Commons:Undeletion requests for cases where someone believes that an image should not have been deleted.
- Commons:Deletion requests for cases where someone believes it should have been deleted. Where else would you raise the issue?
As far as this image goes, it is clearly an image of a building, therefore it falls into "Architecture", which is clearly covered by copyright in Russia. All architecture, not just some architecture. The building is the only thing pictured except for some trees and another building in the far background. I do not understand how my colleague can say that the building is de minimis in this image -- indeed, if there were a single image of a Russian building that ought to be deleted, this might be it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Eduardo paredes ortega images
[edit]- File:GUAYLLABAMBA (ZOOLOGICO). ARCHIVO PAREDEZ..jpg
- File:LAS LAJAS (MUSEO). ARCHIVO PAREDEZ..jpg
- File:ATACAMES (ALEJANDRA).ARCHIVO PAREDEZ..jpg
- File:ALGUNOS MIEMBROS DE LA FAMILIA PAREDES BAUTISTA Y TRILLOS PA.jpg
- File:JARDIN BOTANICO 6.JPG
- File:PEGUCHI-MARIA JOSE..JPG
- File:PEGUCHI-IMBABURA.JPG
- File:PEGUCHI. ARCHIVO PAREDEZ.JPG
- File:QUINTA DE MERA.JPG
- File:QUINTA DE MERA 6.JPG
- File:EDUARDO PAREDEZ 2.JPG
._ARCHIVO_PAREDEZ..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._ARCHIVO_PAREDEZ..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.ARCHIVO_PAREDEZ..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
They're all pictures of the life of a family (probably the user's one). Out of project scope. --Broc (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete photos that are obviously out of scope. I can't speak Spanish but I think that somebody who can should check if we have better photos of some places like botanical garden, waterfalls or museum and then keep or delete that photos. --Mazvier (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete - out of scope, misunderstanding of the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope Lymantria (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Derivative picture from a copyrighted work (by J. R. R. Tolkien) Rondador (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question Rondador, we need a little more information here. A map of a fictional place is OK if it is drawn from scratch -- the rules are the same as a map of a real place. However, maps of fictional places have the additional problem that they are usually DW of maps in the book. If the book had no map, and this were simply drawn from the author's description of the place, it would be OK. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: insufficient information about the origin of the actual map Jcb (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I downloaded the picture just to test. Thank you. Hjhenrijoel (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Private picture, no source, no author. Not notable person. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)