Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
According to Ticket 2011111610068642 - viol. of pers.rights, not made in public. The explicit prohibition of taking pictures in that private situation has been ignored Nolispanmo 13:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- The photo was regrettably not taken in public and must therefor be deleted according to Mr. Riewa's request. --ChrisHamburg (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not taken in public Raymond 14:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This image is own work Kassatoumey (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: invalid DR Denniss (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia AMERICOPHILE 00:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Russia as said above. MGA73 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
license tags copyrighted free may be wrong, I think that isn't free Ezarateesteban 18:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as obvious copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 23:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Replaced by File:Jacob den Breems door Jan Ensing.jpg Gouwenaar (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: processed as recent dupe-speedy Túrelio (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
По желанию владельца Дарья Меланьина (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Google translate from russian: "At the request of the owner". --MagnusA (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Talk pages are typically not deleted FASTILY (TALK) 09:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This image is a copy of File:Jake Cooking Small.jpg on en-wiki, a picture of User:Jakew. The uploader has been harassing Jakew and this upload (and name) is part of that campaign. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright status is unclear. ALE! ¿…? 15:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:HTML5-logo.svg; no use Ricvelozo (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Sclaed down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Also File:Please daddy.jpg and File:Daddys secret.jpg. Uploader using Commons to flash the Internetz. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 03:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Nominated in bad fath, since the intention of the uploader is irrelevant. However, these are of rather poor quality, so maybe we can ask the uploader to present something more focused and with correct titles as well as removing these files. Something like Daddys secret.jpg can be useful for body hair illustration, but currently is hard to see. Beta M (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - nuke and ban Boy4daddyz (talk · contribs). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - delete, no educational use. --Xijky (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete quite poor quality, delete per Out of COM:SCOPE -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Useless trash. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material, includes web-addres Motopark (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material, includes web-addres Motopark (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material, out of scope, no description Motopark (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Promotional material, out of scope, no description Motopark (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
File:PQAAAN1AbuKSazfRId0A7cWw5nvAOlFFCz28E_kLdcPc4QU_r0K2Of50YCCekw9gCH7orbcaOI28RQaDF2sb4bWtflwAm1T1UJgetuKuBVlzzH_IuheDYnKKhdVG.jpg
[edit]
I don't think it's own work because the lack of META data and the meaningless filename which suggests that it's from database Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of any kind of explanation or identifying information, unremarkable portrait, low resolution. -Pete F (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
File:PQAAAH9km3jWqs1njarICIiG4sg0tahhw2-QiQbJUGDKFMO3UqQl0FwWT-t6WoTHvymvhZEiPyM-jhMoqdG4SK2ZOBYAm1T1UO5s-Fgt14APBm0ogLp-ZEZk26dw.jpg
[edit]
I don't think it's own work because the lack of META data and the meaningless filename which suggests that it's from database Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of any kind of explanation or identifying information, unremarkable portrait, low resolution. -Pete F (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
File:PQAAALJXBjVyYtg_qyTGJW7tr2aIbgURcIw-D50n9Nirf48bTe6jkTZdXlICms8Yr_03FGwxy5c42lQJxv4ephdiABQAm1T1UFIqHKXWm3sfNtSV8MQ_Aa4sGuTG.jpg
[edit]
I don't think it's own work because the lack of META data and the meaningless filename which suggests that it's from database Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of any kind of explanation or identifying information, unremarkable portrait, low resolution. Not sure about authorship concern in nom, but I don't see any reason to keep it anyway without any useful metadata. -Pete F (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
File:PQAAAKpAopZL0zA-7zeRz1jsg932lbw209wNAjE8U4Q2bMVP8qzNX-LYX53Fm0pKTqK5HArhKLGg-5r9mItGPQ4HYpgAm1T1UH2uVRzeVc4g-JBc-lCSc8l_oVt2.jpg
[edit]
I don't think it's own work because the lack of META data and the meaningless filename which suggests that it's from database Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of any kind of explanation or identifying information, unremarkable portrait, low resolution. Not sure about authorship concern in nom, but I don't see any reason to keep it anyway without any useful metadata. -Pete F (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
File:PQAAAI4CvsNDHIMCQMSVN2qdUteiwaS7-GEx0ZjrXcL8floumWFuBDKsbMplYLYU_E7auwO6kZbPIe5x2QuRiaRfbW0Am1T1UOY3Qdx9kAkSh_kWqrX-vLy3ZPQ4.jpg
[edit]
I don't think it's own work because the lack of META data and the meaningless filename which suggests that it's from database Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of any kind of explanation or identifying information, unremarkable portrait, low resolution. Not sure about authorship concern in nom, but I don't see any reason to keep it anyway without any useful metadata. -Pete F (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality, useless for lack of description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of any kind of explanation or identifying information, poor quality, low resolution. -Pete F (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Nominated on behalf of User:Gunnex. Reason given was "Out of COM:PS, related article deleted via SD ("Biografia nonsense. A Wikipédia não é o Orkut") & pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Tiago Avelino da Silva Azevedo" FASTILY (TALK) 08:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Image has copyright Contactmusic.com watermark on it. 194.94.56.11 09:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Multiple results on the Internet, see here--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Very low resolution and bad quality image. I think it's also out of scope too Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this image is out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
a pdf of a enwp article, no need for it. mabdul 11:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination. Beta M (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom as well. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
another enwp article in a pdf (this user uploaded the source code multiple times!) mabdul 11:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
enwp article source code. no need for it (this user uploaded multiple times similar pdfs) mabdul 11:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope and not used Neozoon (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice private photo but Commons is no private photo album 80.187.96.26 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is an old, orphaned version of en:File:Zp_logo.png; also out of scope and possible wrong licensed tagged. mabdul 20:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 20:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addihockey10 (talk • contribs) 2011-11-16T06:09:53 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 20:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addihockey10 (talk • contribs) 2011-11-16T06:10:08 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Text only contribution, out of Commons project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Text only contribtion, out of Commons project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Text only contribtion, out of Commons project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since January 2011 Hystrix (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since January 2011 Hystrix (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo; unused since January 2011 Hystrix (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Likely not created by User:twinscards. Does any curious US based PD-regulation apply? High Contrast (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Info this file is now included in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Andreacello#Baseball cards uploaded by Andreacello - please comment there instead of here. --Saibo (Δ) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: See Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Andreacello Saibo (Δ) 21:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Way too simple for copyright... but IANAL. Beta M (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just take a look at this.--Rapsar (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Background is certainly not simple and lends heavily to the creativity. Wknight94 talk 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation --Rapsar (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also this crop File:Mertan Caner Öztürk.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Denniss (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
only for advertising. no need in any article nor encyclopedic value! mabdul 12:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
copyvio. source: http://www.luxist.com/2009/12/02/luxist-gift-guide-09-cruzan-single-barrel-estate-rum/ BMRR (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomlete DR. --JuTa 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: invalid name; the valid name ist Category:Oreochromis mossambicus; --Haplochromis (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- С точки зрения систематики мнение по поводу "invalid name" безупречно. Здесь у меня нет возражений. Однако Tilapia mossambica (и вообще Tilapia) является широко известным товарным и литературным термином, И ДАЖЕ фактом истории и культуры. Именно об этом я сделал большую и особую статью в ru-Wiki (Tilapia). Именно "тиляпия", но не Oreochromis! К сожалению, систематика слишком часто пересматривается, роды рыб и растений делятся на мелкие, а затем объединяются обратно. Такова структура профессионального сознания (но не природы). В итоге: категории придётся менять слишком часто, при каждой новой научной работе. Таким образом, я оставил бы категорию неизменной: Category:Tilapia mossambica, а Category:Oreochromis mossambicus сделал бы ПЕРЕНАПРАВЛЕНИЕМ (REDIRECT). Если же эта точка зрения кажется Вам слишком радикальной, тогда можно поступить наоборот: Category:Tilapia mossambica сделать redirect. Но этот вариант мне кажется менее "valid". Прошу прощения за русский язык. --FinitoR (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 19:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Unuseful category that consisted of only one image. It's named after municipal politician that was not well known and as he died lately, not expecting any other free images of him. 193.40.10.180 11:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with the deletion request of the anonymous user. A category of - at this moment - only one image for people is in my opinion useful for retrieving. The argument "municipal politician that was not well known" is questionable because there exists an artikel about him on Wikipedia. For those who wrote the article he was well known. Indeed for the anonymous user he may be not well known just as many people in China and Australia may never heard of him. The argument "as he died lately, not expecting any other free images of him" is not relevant in my opinion. Wouter (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Please delete, unsuitable category name by me, as generic name was left, out see: Nymphaea tropical day blooming group Uleli (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Completing an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 19:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Wrong spelling Uleli (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Completing an inomplete DR. --JuTa 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote:{{Delete|reason=change license to trademark|subpage=File:Logo-sfc.tif|day=15|month=November|year=2011}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiss Financial (talk • contribs) 2011-11-15T14:31:38 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Bad name, error
- User {{Rename}} please. Beta M (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please use the rename template suggested above. Tiptoety talk 05:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Bad name, error
- User {{Rename}} please. Beta M (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please use the rename template suggested above. Tiptoety talk 05:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Rapsar (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Nothing to prove copyright violation. Mulazimoglu (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Beta M (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Support deletion. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 05:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
it's damaged 93.32.131.248 13:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep already fixed--McZusatz (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Fixed. Tiptoety talk 05:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Italy has no FOP, architect living Friedrichstrasse (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
it's damaged 93.32.131.248 13:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep already fixed--McZusatz (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Fixed. Tiptoety talk 05:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The architect is living. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's only a small part of the building. Most parts are covered. --McZusatz (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Kept Too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
it's damaged 93.32.131.248 13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 05:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
it's damaged 93.32.131.248 13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep already fixed--McZusatz (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Fixed. Tiptoety talk 05:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The architect is living. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by Fastily. Yann (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Pioneerhj (talk · contribs). No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Deletecopyvio.[1]--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.chosun.ac.kr/servlet/kr.co.k2web.jwizard.common.servlet.ImageViewServlet?command=viewImage&img=http://www.chosun.ac.kr/user/www/k2board/www_27_235_12964323438080.jpg&script_yn=N){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted by another administrator. Tiptoety talk 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Not own work: image quality may be an indication for that 80.187.96.26 19:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: see also Commons:Deletion requests/Images by User:Masader High Contrast (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No indication whatsoever that this image was released under CC0 by the author Pbech (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Single upload account, hit and run copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 11:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Gestumblindi (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be from same set as [2], whose watermark indicates that uploader is not copyright holder. (Original image is presumed to be behind paywall at said site.) Note: uploader has had previous images of this subject deleted as copyvios. KinuP (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/1401941710/13111_MadelineRainDeGrey_002.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. Obvious copyvio. No reason to accept license claims from serial copyviolater. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt we delete it Ezarateesteban 14:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted poster Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't know what law applies in France, or on wikipedia, concerning "derivative works of copyrighted posters", so I won't argue that point.
- What I know is that the person shown on the poster is a candidate in the 2012 French presidential election, that her image is public and that similar posters are on display for everyone to see. It seems to me the candidate, or the political party, owning the rights to the poster would certainly see no objection to it being depicted on wikipedia, as it is clearly in their interest that it be seen as much as possible. In a word, I don't see the logic of withdrawing it. Best regards, Camster (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Camster's arguments are unfortunately irrelevant to the copyright situation. Rosenzweig τ 21:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let it be. I have to conclude, on my side, that the copyright situation is irrelevant to real life :) - Regards, Camster (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unlikely that this image is the own work of the uploader. (mind the user's talk problems) 80.187.96.26 19:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 21:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely that this image is the own work of the uploader: it misses EXIF data and the resolution is commonly used on the web 80.187.96.26 19:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
too much categorization for only one small college located in Brühl ZH2010 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Support to use Category:Universities and colleges in North Rhine-Westphalia. Metrónomo (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose It is in fact by far not only one small college, my learned friend! The category contains (or should contain) the three colleges/academies Fachhochschule des Bundes für öffentliche Verwaltung (FH Bund), the Bundesakademie für öffentliche Verwaltung and the Bundesfinanzakademie. The may be small, but not unimportant! They are all distinguished German institutions. -- J.-H. Janßen (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Currently no reason to delete this one. A.Savin 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
obsolete page, see Category:SNCB_Classical_EMU Wiebevl (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - a category is not a reason to delete a gallery page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: No additional information given, therefore clear redundancy. A.Savin 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Image found on several other websites, and is suspiciously low resolution. Possible copyvio? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 21:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
doubtfully own work Funfood ␌ 22:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 21:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
from facebook, no own work Funfood ␌ 22:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 21:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This image is own work Kassatoumey (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- not really - looks more like a inet image. → likely copyvio. --Saibo (Δ) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a handmade photo of me as a sport club photographer. The rider is member of that club. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlie oko (talk • contribs) 2011-12-19T20:09:17 (UTC)
- Hi Orlie oko! Thanks for your comment. So you are the photographer of this image? It is your work?
- Don't you want to upload a bigger version? Then it could be viewed in higher quality. It will be automatically scaled down in the articles. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 21:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Violation of copyright. Picture quality is low for be an own work. It seems a screenshot Pedroca cerebral Talk-Up 00:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 21:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. No FOP for artworks in the US. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - en:The Big Texan Steak Ranch is from 1960, the sign has no copyright mark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It's a modern artwork whoever the author was, and a closeup shot may not qualify as de minimis. A.Savin 14:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe it is own work. No meta data, see watermark and http://www.murciaturistica.es/es/turismo.galeria_fotografica?tipo=monumentos&valor=108-2007 Wouter (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright is not right in my opinion Wouter (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No meta data, makes me think that this is a copyvio or something Flickrworker (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I think I walready tagged the same image by thesame uploader as "no permission" a few weeks ago. mabdul 21:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete agreed JDOG555 (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 14:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking like a scanned image from a news paper. Kiran Gopi (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for 2D art (photos) in Egypt.[3] FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- True unless the photographer has a permission to do so. If yes, then we should Keep it. Talk to Lilian and she if she does. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- But did she personally take the picture~s in the collage? FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the women holding the collage is the original photographer or a family member of those who died and she allowed Lilian to take a photo of it, then keeping the picture should not be an issue. Just talk to Lilian and ask her :-). -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like an unlikely scenario, and in any case, it's up to the uploader to prove the copyright status. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I asked her and waiting for her to respond. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- She said "yes the person who is holding the collage is the original photographer" so I guess we can keep it -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that is the photographer (of this photo itself) who has to own the rights, we have no idea of what copyright the photos the guy is holding has. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- You have to assume good faith here and asking Lilian to give a full account of her chat with the photographer is pushing it, so unless the original photographer complains, I say we should keep it. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is Commons, not Wikipedia, good faith is not enough when it comes to copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Lilian is professional photographer so assuming (in good faith) the asked the original copyright holder to use her/his photos under the license Lilian used to release the photo is not far fetched. If you dont agree with my POV, you can ask her for more details. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think very few people actually know the minutiae of copyright law. If she asked if she could take a picture of the guy and his banner, and got permission, that stil doesn't mean she can determine the copyright of the pictures on the banner. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Lilian is professional photographer so assuming (in good faith) the asked the original copyright holder to use her/his photos under the license Lilian used to release the photo is not far fetched. If you dont agree with my POV, you can ask her for more details. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is Commons, not Wikipedia, good faith is not enough when it comes to copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- You have to assume good faith here and asking Lilian to give a full account of her chat with the photographer is pushing it, so unless the original photographer complains, I say we should keep it. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that is the photographer (of this photo itself) who has to own the rights, we have no idea of what copyright the photos the guy is holding has. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- She said "yes the person who is holding the collage is the original photographer" so I guess we can keep it -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I asked her and waiting for her to respond. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seems like an unlikely scenario, and in any case, it's up to the uploader to prove the copyright status. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the women holding the collage is the original photographer or a family member of those who died and she allowed Lilian to take a photo of it, then keeping the picture should not be an issue. Just talk to Lilian and ask her :-). -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- But did she personally take the picture~s in the collage? FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Sorry, clearly a derivative work, even if there was FoP the permanence criterion was missed. If the Flickr uploader claims to be the photographer she has to send a mail to OTRS, otherwise we must follow COM:PRP. A.Savin 15:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image uploaded by a vandal-only user on it.wp, who keeps creating an article about the person in the photo, which is not a professional cyclist at all Cruccone (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- The same user has uploaded File:Gruppo Protek.jpg and File:Vittoria Campionato italiano.jpg, which are of bad quality and it is not clear what they represent. He claims they represent the above guy but are probably random cycling pics. --Cruccone (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
it's damaged 93.32.131.248 13:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's Duplicate of File:MONESTIROLI GALLIATE.jpg --McZusatz (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Danielpaniagua (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Actually a DR without rationale, but the reference to a web site in files uploaded by this user makes me suppose a possible copyvio. A.Savin 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No credible authorship, source or copyright information. The uploader seems unable or unwilling to tell the difference between their own work and other people's work.[4][5] A higher-resolution version of the photo appears on http://canhdongtruyengiao.net/NhipSongQuanhTa/Chuyen%20do%20day/TruongBuuDiep/TBDiep01.html. Proper information is needed to determine the copyright status. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dulichvietnam.jpg&diff=62670350){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ConggiaoRoma2.png&diff=62675061){kind=link}
- Objection: Hình này phát tán rất nhiều trên internet, thậm chí địa chỉ trang web kể trên không hẳn là chủ sở hữu của hình này. Chưa thấy có một phản đối đòi bản quyền nào từ tác giả chính thức của nó cho đến thời điểm này. Vậy tôi phản đối việc xóa hình này.--Tran The Vinh (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
and other photos by Encuentros (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Two reasons:
Does not provided proper source.Provided- Permission statement on the site is unclear. It allows to use materials under GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0 but forbid commercial usage. Anatoliy (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
In Russian:
Не указан точный источник (ссылка на страницу с изображением — чтобы можно было проверить, что изображение действительно взято с этого сайта)Указан- Условия использования на сайте проиворечат друг другу. В первом абзаце написано, что разрешено использовать под лицензией CC-BY-SA и/или GFDL, а во втором — что не допускается коммерческое использование, что противоречит условиям CC-BY-SA и GFDL.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
In Polish:
- wskazany --Bulka UA (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, proper source is good, but template {{Vlasenko}} applies ONLY to the images from site UA.vlasenko.net, but not SK.vlasenko.net and MAPS.vlasenko.net (as stated in OTRS-ticket). This image comes from sk.vlasenko net. // Ru: итсочник указан правильно, а вот шаблон {{Vlasenko}} применяется ТОЛЬКО для изображений из сайта ua.vlasenko.net, но не для сайта sk.valsenko.net и maps.vlasenko.net. А здесь источник имено sk.vlasenko.net.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- na czym polega problem? Przeczytaj autora zdjęcia uprawnienia. --Bulka UA (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Problem is in sentence Недопустимо коммерческое использование материалов // проблема во фразе Недопустимо коммерческое использование материалов.--Anatoliy (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- na czym polega problem? Przeczytaj autora zdjęcia uprawnienia. --Bulka UA (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, proper source is good, but template {{Vlasenko}} applies ONLY to the images from site UA.vlasenko.net, but not SK.vlasenko.net and MAPS.vlasenko.net (as stated in OTRS-ticket). This image comes from sk.vlasenko net. // Ru: итсочник указан правильно, а вот шаблон {{Vlasenko}} применяется ТОЛЬКО для изображений из сайта ua.vlasenko.net, но не для сайта sk.valsenko.net и maps.vlasenko.net. А здесь источник имено sk.vlasenko.net.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Как правообладатель я разрешаю публиковать материалы сайта на условиях свободной лицензии GNU Free Documentation License версии 1.2 или любой более новой, опубликованной Фондом Свободного Программного Обеспечения (Free Software Foundation) с дополнительными условиями, принятыми в Википедии, то есть без неизменяемых секций, без текста первой обложки и без текста последней обложки; а также свободной лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported pytania? питання? questions? --Bulka UA (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Читайте до конца. Во втором абзаце Недопустимо коммерческое использование материалов.--Anatoliy (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- with warning for those who are too lazy to read the license terms. --Bulka UA (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, you had learnt English
It looks like author was lazy too, and does not read licensimg terms.--Anatoliy (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, you had learnt English
- with warning for those who are too lazy to read the license terms. --Bulka UA (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Читайте до конца. Во втором абзаце Недопустимо коммерческое использование материалов.--Anatoliy (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is quite obviously a low quality image taken from the web and stretched to be used as an image by the creator of a Wikipedia article on the photo subject. Hekerui (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This stock image was altered by NIH, but now they have a different photo ([6]), so it was probably a copyright violation by NIH. Photoshopped image has no encyclopaedic value - it's not a real rash. Shureg (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete because it's a copyvio, not because it's photoshopped (if the NIH uses it as an illustration, it can be deemed a good diagram). --91.177.132.185 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as no encyclopedic value and of questionable copyright. BTW could we use the current image found here [7]?--James Heilman, MD (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Hmm, then we need a better image for lupus --190.60.93.218 15:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Behalten Besser so ein Bild, als gar keines. --Frau Olga (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nö, wenns das Urheberrecht verletzt, dann spielt unser Nutzen oder Bedarf absolut keine Rolle.
- We still have: File:Lupus erythematosus.jpg and File:Lupus pernio 01.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- como es posible que borren esta pagina tan buena en especial para los niños de la escuela se hacen o son tontos los que la quieren borrar yo pienso que es envidia ya que da muy buena informacion muy clara y sencilla para entender mejor para los niños no la borren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.245.76.228 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't look like a real lupus to me, lets use the current NIH photo, btw. this is not about deleting the whole page of Lupus, but just the image...--Triple5 (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Wird nicht mehr benutzt, wurde überarbeitet Durfo (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Das Bild ist beschädigt, unbrauchbar. Eine neue Version ist vorhanden Durfo (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful "own work": low resolution of the photograph and not a EXIF information 80.187.96.26 19:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Doubtful?? Then all own works are doubtful... Also, You can also add EXIF information to an image in order to directly tag your images with additional informations like author and copyright information if you like (Commons:EXIF). Also the user adds info at talk page. Keep it.-Aleator (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not enough indices for a possible copyvio. A.Savin 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 20:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: {{Delete|reason=The license of this file is not CC-BY-SA-3.0, but CC BY-ND. Source: http://www.guregipuzkoa.net/photo/8728 |subpage=File:SagardoKupela.jpg|day=18|month=November|year=2011}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xabier Armendaritz (talk • contribs) 2011-11-18T12:42:59 (UTC)
Oops my bad, that was unintentional. I guess it needs deleted then. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Complting an incomplete DR. --JuTa 20:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: {{Delete|reason=The license of this file is not CC-BY-SA-3.0, but CC BY-ND. Source: http://www.guregipuzkoa.net/photo/8304 |subpage=File:Sagardotegia Astigarraga2.jpg|day=18|month=November|year=2011}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xabier Armendaritz (talk • contribs) 2011-11-18T12:45:56 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 20:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: {{Delete|reason=Specify an invalid license|subpage=File:TeaMint.jpg|day=14|month=November|year=2011}} Сок Сыр Чай (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment This looks like either sockpuppetry or impersonation due to the user names involved. The image is good, so i want to keep, but it maybe a copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 11:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
File has the wrong name it should be "ApelbaumYaacov" not "ApelbaumJacob" JillFine (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please use {{Rename}}. I assume this person is known to others. Beta M (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright kadaster/prov Zuid-Holland Michiel1972 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Architect Maurice Novarina died in 2002, less than 70 years ago. Pymouss Let’s talk - 13:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France Captain-tucker (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Unneeded PNG conversions now replaced by direct copies of source JPEGs File:Holt East Peoria 1910 outside with Minnesota tractor.jpg and File:Holt East Peoria 1910 interior left.jpg. No objection from uploader: see User talk:Btphelps#Holt Caterpillar East Peoria factory files. Closeapple (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Go ahead and delete it. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment hmm, maybe better keep the PNG files (slightly higher quality) and delete the JPGs instead? --:bdk: 01:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rookie1219 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope, no educational value.
Mathonius (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
not from real source Sridhar1000 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm sorry for my bad English, I uploaded the file to flicker, because under the picture the author has written the license to use it.GIUNCO (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep nominator for deletion gave no argument for why it is not from "real source." Warfieldian (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: When I check the flickr license was ok Ezarateesteban 12:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
source??? Svajcr (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- ok, now I have uploaded a new file whose source is Flicker GIUNCO (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept I see no further reason for a deletion comparing to the previous request. A.Savin 14:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Self promotion. This picture is part of a massive promotional attack to Wikipedia and all its related projects. Details can be found here Hypergio (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep This seems to be part of a recent cross-wiki campaign by a very few people to eliminate any trace of this photographer from the Wikimedia projects, after a recent rather innocuous effort, apparently by him or on his behalf, to create user pages for him on many Wikimedia projects. Whatever the merits or foolishness of that effort, I certainly consider some of his art quite notable and worthy for inclusion, and much of it has existed here for years now, with no controversy, and now that it has come to my attention in recent weeks, I intend to use more of it at the Wikiquote project. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 10:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will also note that the link Hypergio (talk · contribs) provides actually seems to call into question at least some of the actions of individuals in preforming some locks and initiating some measures against accounts that were perhaps not warranted. I believe that the current campaign against this photographer's work or mention seems to have now become something of an obsession on the part of some. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is unacceptable call this an obsession. If you believe that it is not promotion it is your own opinion and not the opinion of all Wiki projects users. I did not propose the deletion of all Augusto de Luca photos but 51 on a total of 239 existing on Commons. The proposal concerns the ones that are clearly self promotion only. It would be interisting to know which are the reasons why you believe that this specific picture is not promotional. What do you see other than Augusto de Luca promoting himself? --Hypergio (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will also note that the link Hypergio (talk · contribs) provides actually seems to call into question at least some of the actions of individuals in preforming some locks and initiating some measures against accounts that were perhaps not warranted. I believe that the current campaign against this photographer's work or mention seems to have now become something of an obsession on the part of some. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep: the subject might be not notable for several Wikipedia projects but the photos are in-scope and properly licenced. It's up to the Wikipedia chapters evaluate subject's relevance, not Commons'. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
not from original source Sridhar1000 (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- If photo by Augusto De Luca uploaded to flicker by AUGUSTO DE LUCA are not from original source, then i'm lost. But that is irrelevant. The fact that something came from the secondary source (if it did for example) would be no reason to change its copyright status, educational value, or quality. Keep Beta M (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It's a photo by Augusto De Luca, it's from his Flickr page., it's correctly licensed. I don't understand the nomination. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
source??? Svajcr (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Source is flickr and the license there seems ok. --Funfood ␌ 10:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep Please do not nominate this again unless you have something new to say. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Salvadorcro (talk · contribs)
[edit]All uploads by Salvadorcro are blatant copyright violations.
- File:Labudovic persiba.jpg
- File:Tomislavlabudović.jpg
- File:Utakmica 3 labudovic.jpg
- File:Crno bijela labudovic.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 21:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"removed category per COM:DM (recent work covered by copyright, only acceptable as de minimis, not as subject))" 98.245.156.2 apparently thinks that the sculptures are not DM here. → Photo is a DW. We cannot get them DM just by removing the category. Saibo (Δ) 03:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - courthouse seems old enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Did you note that the DR is about the sculptures?! --Saibo (Δ) 23:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to be impossible to take photo with building as the main object without taking that sculpture as well. Does FOP in that country cover buildings? A.J. (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- They can be (digitally) edited out. No, in France is no FOP at all. However, Pieter claims "seems old enough" without any proof / explanation. --Saibo (Δ) 23:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- fr:Jacques Alleman claims that the architect of the building died in 1945, in which case the building is protected until 2016. I agree the sculptures are de minimis, though. Pruneautalk 10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. The building itself is still copyrighted; there's no FOP in France for buildings. Incidentally I would have accepted the sculptures as de minimis as it's impossible to represent the building without representing them (cf. the court case of the Place des Terreaux). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Built in 1958, no Freedom Of Panorama in Belgium M0tty (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Response by KIK-IRPA: Why the file should not be deleted: The copyright of the photo is held by the institution which made this photo: Koninklijk Institut voor het Kunstpatrimonium (KIK) - Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique (IRPA). The subject of the photo is the building which was especially built for the institution (KIK-IRPA) and for which the institution has the rights to use. Erik-KIK
- Bonjour, je vais m'exprimer en français, car c'est ma langue maternelle et j'ai trop de difficultés avec l'anglais.
- Au moment de la construction, l'architecte a-t-il cédé les droits patrimoniaux (c'est à dire d'exploitation des reproductions du bâtiment) à l'IRPA ?
- Si c'est le cas, il faut que l'IRPA confirme cela en envoyant un mail à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (en anglais) ou permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org (en français) pour de plus amples informations, consultez Commons:OTRS. Sinon, si l'architecte n'a pas cédé les droits d'exploitation, l'image risque d'être supprimée.
- N'hésitez surtout pas à poser d'autres questions ou à demander de l'aide. Cordialement. --M0tty (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No OTRS permission, deleted. A.J. (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Complting an old incomplete DR. --JuTa 19:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: "Unification of Ukraine with Russia" is a biased political term used by Russian side to show the Treaty of Pereyaslav as "Unification". There is allready Category:Pereyaslav treaty. No need to duplicate it, especially in such biased way--Alex Tora (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Unification of Ukraine with Russia" is a special political term used in the Soviet Union, and Ukrainian SSR in XXth Century.--El1604 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this was a "popular" political term in the Soviet Union, and is still popular among Russians today, though this does not necessarily justify use of politically charged terms in a neutral encyclopedia. For example, the repressive Soviet regime used a number of emotionally charged terms to victimize people who did not fit into its political agenda. The terms "exploiting classes", "religion is opium", "liquidation of the kulaks as a class", and "Dekulakization were used to incite hatred of classes of people and to legitimize their murder. Although these are 'historical terms', I suggest that it would not be appropriate to use them as categories today, unless Wikipedia ended up being an encyclopedia focusing on glorifying the Soviet Union. --Very trivial (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Inferiority complexes of the DR author go to far. Unification is the objective description of what was going on. Be thankful that we didn't call it Reunification though we had reason to, regarding ancient Rus'. --Voevoda (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- The personal attack and offensive comment above, not only does not give any valid argument against the removal of the category, but unfortunately illustrates the sort of offensive attitudes that politically charged terms/categories engender in some people. --Very trivial (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The political bias is obvious, and the category simply duplicates the Pereyaslav treaty one.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete 1. The Category:Pereyaslav treaty already exists; it is historically accurate (there is no debate about its official title) and importantly the name of the category is 'neutral'
2. The title "Unification of Ukraine with Russia" was not the official title of this historic event at that time. At that time, the word "Ukraine" was not used by Imperial Russia in official documents.
3. It would be inappropriate to include a name of a category, where there is no consensus among historians as to how to interpret the outcome of this historical event. See the entry in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, for example.
4. There are only 3 items currently in this category. --Very trivial (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC) - Merge with Pereyaslav treaty. There's no bias in the word "unification" unless one is biased himself ("unification of Scotland and England", does it sound biased? "Unification of Texas and the US?" Still can't see what's wrong with the word). But there's no specific reason to keep two categories for the same thing.--Beaumain (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.J. (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Where is the evidence for the used `Free Art License`? In 1930 this license did not exist 80.187.96.26 19:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- This question in french Bistro (20 November) has this answer : Le motif de suppression est très absurde et même non valide. ( It is a very silly and no valid question) .... Jur@astro (Discuter avec le Sphynx jurassien) 20 novembre 2011 à 12:27 (CET).--Claude PIARD (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ce document est le scan, à fin d'introduction sur Commons et dans les locaux même de la fédération, de la première page du bulletin fédéral de Juillet 1930. Le président Jean Vintezl m'a établi une attestation générale pour ce genre de procédure, attestation déjà communiquée en fichier à wikimédia-permission. Est-il indispensable de la renvoyer ? Comment ? Sinon, s'il ne s'agit que d'une erreur - de bonne foi - sur le choix de la licence, pouvez-vous me conseiller utilement sur le choix le plus judicieux ? Je comprends d'ailleurs mal la réfutation de ce choix au seul argument que la formule elle-même serait postérieure à 1930. Cela voudrait-il dire que tout document antérieur à la date de création de cette licence ne peut en bénéficier ?--Claude PIARD (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- This file is the scan, to be introduced in Commons, of the first page of federal newspaper (July 1930). Our president, Jean Vintzel, give me a paper to do this thing. I have sent this one to Wkimedia-permission. If "free art licence" is not correct, what else, please ? And why a thing older as this licence cannot use it ?--Claude PIARD (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is an abstract of federal newspaper, a very public thing. And it is no case of copyvo : the actual president of this federation give me a paper to use this kind of thing. I can send it to you. But where and how ? What else licence to use in this case ? Please, do not delete this file, very usefull to this paper. Sory for my poor english and good night.--Claude PIARD (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Remarquant que cette demande, qui me semble peut-être paradoxale, émane d'une IP je m'interroge sur sa légitimité et transmets cette demande sur le Bistro.--Claude PIARD (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- This question in french Bistro (20 November) has this answer : Le motif de suppression est très absurde et même non valide. ( It is a very silly and no valid question) .... Jur@astro (Discuter avec le Sphynx jurassien) 20 novembre 2011 à 12:27 (CET).--Claude PIARD (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify: that's the Bistro on the French Wikipedia and not the one on Commons. See fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/20 novembre 2011#Fichier:Alger FSGPF.jpg for reference. The rationale for the proposed deletion is not absurd. At the time of nomination, it was claimed that this 1930 publication is copyrighted and published under the specific terms and conditions of the Free Art License. This is unlikely and would indeed require some verifiable evidence.
- That claim has since been changed to indicate that the file is in the public domain because the author has supposedly been dead for more than 70 years. However, there is not sufficient evidence to verify that claim either. The main copyrightable element of the cover is the photograph. (The logotype may also be copyrightable.) A photographer active in 1930 would not have been dead for more than 70 years unless they died within about 10 years of taking the photo. The photographer is clearly named "A. Bienvenu" (or is that "Bieavenu"?), so ({{Anonymous-EU}} does not apply either. Information on when the photographer died is needed to determine whether the photograph is protected by copyright. If it is protected by copyright, licensing permission from the heirs is needed. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Was the first licence more pertinent ?--Claude PIARD (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know (unless I am mistaken) and as mentioned, in French, under permission, on the file’s page → Alger FSGPF, it seems that the president (or an official member) of Fédération sportive et culturelle de France (FSCF) — which, historically speaking, is closely linked to Fédération gymnastique et sportive des patronages de France (FGSPF) — has personally sent a written email to permissions-commons, allowing the uploader to make use of all images relating to those two aforesaid federations via commons, considering that they are all originated from their private and historical archives.
- euphonie breviary
- 18:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully, then, they can help clarify the following points:
- Was the copyright of the photograph transferred from the photographer to the FSCF (by contract or by employer–employee status)?
- If yes, the work should be in the public domain because of its publication date.
- If no, the copyright status depends on when the photographer died, so we would need that information.
- If the photographer died less than 70 years ago, we would need a licensing statement from the heirs. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully, then, they can help clarify the following points:
- No, there seems to be no basis for your claim that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms of the Free Art License. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, it seems to appears that the answer to the very first point you mention here → [8] would be yes, as also confirmed via this additional message → [9], which would mean that the copyright of the photograph was transferred from the photographer to the FSCF by employer–employee status. Hoping that this complementary information might help!
- euphonie breviary
- 04:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alger_FSGPF.jpg&diff=62905092&oldid=62864111){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:Alger_FSGPF.jpg){kind=link}
- OTRS
Malgré au long silence qui fait suite à cette demande de suppression aux motifs contestés et par mesure de sécurité une demande OTRS a été renvoyée ce jour. Merci donc de bien vouloir en tenir compte et laisser ce fichier jusqu'au traîtement de celle-ci--Claude PIARD (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Compte-tenu de la faiblesse reconnue de l'argumentation initiale de demande de suppression et de la demande OTRS en cours, y a-t-il lieu de maintenir le bandeau qui date maintenant de quatre mois--Claude PIARD (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- On n'a toujours pas de confirmation de la demande OTRS, on ne cloture pas (en tout cas surtout pas en garder). --PierreSelim (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing in the message at Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Alger FSGPF.jpg that is helpful here. It names the source of the image without addressing at all the question of the photographer's copyright. It also gives permission only for Wikipedia, which is not sufficient to keep the image on Commons.
Although it was tagged with {{OTRS pending}} a month ago, no OTRS message has been received referring to this file.
So, we have a 1930 photograph taken by a known photographer whose date of death we do not know. Unless we can determine that he died before 1942, or determine definitely that the photographer transferred his copyright (this is unlikely), together with a valid license (not just for use in WP), then the image must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me)
Deleted: No evidence of permission or verifiablity of freedom of copyright Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 05:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- La demande a bien été expédiée au mois de Janvier 2012. Et elle vient de vous être re-dirigée (en l'état) depuis cette suppression. Merci d'en tenir compte. Par ailleurs, ce document n'est pas une photographie d'auteur - ce qui aurait justifié l'argumentation ci-dessus - mais une page de revue contenant, entre autre, une photographie. Ce qui n'est pas la même chose chose en matière de droits d'auteurs, ceux-ci étant dévolus au directeur de publication ou à son successeur. Qui nous a donné expressement l'autorisation jointe en attaché à la demande OTRS. Je vous souhaite une très bonne journée.--Claude PIARD (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)