Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.png){kind=link}
_in_print_room,_England.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Copyright Violation raul (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation raul (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation raul (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation raul (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation raul (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation raul (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation raul (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Violation raul (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
EXIF data say the image is copyrighted in 2010 by Getty Images; this photo is available on the internet (i.e. not a privately uploaded image) Materialscientist (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded this svg file aboaut GNU/Linux distributions by accident, I was trying to update another file. Moisés P. Parra O. (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Good faith self nomination. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 19:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted; upload mistake, deletion promptly requested by uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I made this image and it is a mistake. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted'; upload mistake, deletion promptly requested by uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Image added by a serial sockpuppet master. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alex_singersing. Serves no useful pupose, will never be used in any legitimate article. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MuZemike (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Self-"created", clearly unencyclopedic image. The SOPA-Blackout was fine, but activism-related content should be encyclopedically relevant, this one is not. Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. It could be encyclopedic if proven that it is a notable caricature, a notable image used for a notable protest, or something like that. It appears simply as a defaced photo of a living person, i.e. a personal attack. Materialscientist (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. - Speedy delete - its been created by a user to demean a living subject of one of our articles. Off2riorob (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Before taking sides in this request, I would like to ask Materialscientist firstly if an image made for a talkpage needs to be encyclopedic. Further, I'd like to ask why it's considered a 'personal attack'. The manner in which it is was used here seems heroic on a very popular cultural dynamic. Give him a horse, a gun and you can have El Lamaro riding through Querétaro, México as a crime-fighting hero. I personally wouldn't give him a gun though, although it is part of the strong cultural stereotypical image. Other editors seem to have mixed feelings about the image, Bilby suggested it was humorous and funny, but not appropriate for an article talkpage, which I agree with, in the circumstances he was referring to. I'd also like to ask Off2riorob why he thinks I created it to 'demean' anyone ? I certainly didn't create it to demean Lamar, I created it to assist new editors on the SOPA talkpage, in a similar fashion to the messagebox which is there now, with wikipe-tan. I was aiming for subtle humor at best but as Bilby point out the humor went from 'subtle to blatant' when changing from the unaltered image to the Spanish hero flavored one, and I agreed with him because that wasn't what I was after. Penyulap (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: attack image Denniss (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I uploaded to wrong place, keep or delete is up to you. Wendy Black (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative Denniss (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
EXIF data and this page say the the image is copyrighted by Robert Zolles. Information template says the image author is UEFA, which is also copyrighted source Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This is my picture and it was clicked without my knowledge and above that..it is even uploaded on the internet!!! 1.23.135.118 16:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Uhm, this was taken by me, so I assume your problem is that it is a photo of you. I'm afraid that as this was taken in a public place, there is no expectation of privacy. Furthermore, it does not "unfairly demean or ridicule you", was not "unfairly obtained" and I don't see how it in any way intrudes into your private life. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people for more information. More to the point, I did know the people in the photo. Which are you? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well Matt, the picture has been taken from afar and unreasonably intrudes in my private life. I had not intended to be clicked and the direction of face of both personalities in the picture clearly evidence that they have been unfairly obtained. There is no gathering and this is an ad-hoc picture clicked of two girls near their residence and not in a public place. Hence it is liable to be removed. You may note that universities are included in public places but not residences. 1.23.134.221 13:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- But this was taken outside the hall, not inside. Inside could be considered a private space, but outside there is no expectation of privacy. Further, it was not taken "from afar" - it was maybe 50m at most and in plain view. Furthermore, I know you were aware of my taking the photos since there are several more of you that I didn't upload (not good enough photos) in which you're looking directly at the camera. In fact you must have actually walked past me. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well Matt, the picture has been taken from afar and unreasonably intrudes in my private life. I had not intended to be clicked and the direction of face of both personalities in the picture clearly evidence that they have been unfairly obtained. There is no gathering and this is an ad-hoc picture clicked of two girls near their residence and not in a public place. Hence it is liable to be removed. You may note that universities are included in public places but not residences. 1.23.134.221 13:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Fine, whatever, deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Per Commons:Village Pump/Copyright#Use of image without permission, this file was a license laundering/flickrwash of another user's image. The true source is here, and it is marked as all rights reserved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No real date, no real source, false author, absurd license. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep This is another offensive deletion request made by Pieter Kuiper in his personal image stalking campaign against me. This is a lithographic advert printed by Camis around 1900, the author is unknown. This is a rare reference to a Rose Absinthe. PD-Old-100 would be suitable. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- The poster is signed. I cannot read it at this resolution, but the author is not unknown. And PD-Old-100 is not suitable for cases where the author is unknown, unless works are very very old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper, that appears to be the name of the printer, nobody else is on record as identifying the artist of this advert. As for your personal interpretation of PD-Old-100, considering your current personal image stalking campaign, record of defamatory allegations and offensive sarcasm targeted at me, I would rather go by an established consensus rather than your opinions thanks. --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Bottom left hand corner shows a signature, almost certainly of the artist. And it is rather tiresome when contributors demand references for what is in the clear text of the template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you read that signature, you can see it is the name of the printer. It is not the original commissioned artist. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Left hand is the one with your thumb on the right. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Fæ, are you stating you can read the cursive on the left and it says "Imprimerie Camis"? -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit) I found the cursive "signature" reads "Imp. Camis" (abreviation for the printer/publisher) -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your offensive sarcasm does not help your case one bit. You apparently have a severe behavioural problem, I can think of no other explanation for your persistent offensive personal attacks in deletion requests, I am sorry to see that such disruptive behaviour on Wikimedia Commons appears to be allowed and has become normalized for you. Refer to my previous comment. I count this as the ninth personal abusive attack against me in a recent deletion review. --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- PLEASE KNOCK IT OFF you two. Please discuss points such as relevant copyright law and sourcing. Sarcasm or personal accusations seems only to bring out escalations of the same from the other (and annoyance from me and I suspect others). -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you read that signature, you can see it is the name of the printer. It is not the original commissioned artist. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Bottom left hand corner shows a signature, almost certainly of the artist. And it is rather tiresome when contributors demand references for what is in the clear text of the template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pieter Kuiper, that appears to be the name of the printer, nobody else is on record as identifying the artist of this advert. As for your personal interpretation of PD-Old-100, considering your current personal image stalking campaign, record of defamatory allegations and offensive sarcasm targeted at me, I would rather go by an established consensus rather than your opinions thanks. --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, {{PD-old-100}} is certainly wrong if we don't know who the artist was. And I agree that the signature on the left looks like the artist's signature; why would the printer sign the artwork? (Unless he happens to be both — the author and the printer —, who knows.) So I'd say delete, unless we can get some better source information and the real reason why it would be PD. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly what license would you recommend for a print over 100 years old for which the artist is unknown? --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the artist is most likely not unknown, if he or she signed the work. I cannot recommend any license without that crucial piece of information, and that's the whole point of this DR — finding out the real source. What is certain is that a tag that claims the author died more than 100 years ago, accompanied with a claim that the author is unknown, is simply invalid. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly what license would you recommend for a print over 100 years old for which the artist is unknown? --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- The poster is signed. I cannot read it at this resolution, but the author is not unknown. And PD-Old-100 is not suitable for cases where the author is unknown, unless works are very very old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment a reverse image search finds this reproduced on many websites. The most info given is "An unrecorded lithographic poster for Rosinette, Absinthe Rosé Oxygénée, (37" x 50"), printed by Camis around 1900." Even sites which give authorship credit to other posters give none to this one, and I was unable to find any online reproductions where the signature is legible. "Imprimerie Camis" was the publisher/print shop. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have found the cursive "signature" to read "Imp. Camis", short for "Imprimerie Camis". Thus there is credit for the printer/publisher, but not for any artist, so this would qualify as an anon work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I read it the same way, hence my repeated point that this was not the signature of the artist. --Fæ (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have found the cursive "signature" to read "Imp. Camis", short for "Imprimerie Camis". Thus there is credit for the printer/publisher, but not for any artist, so this would qualify as an anon work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per above and Commons:Licensing#France; anon work printed more than 70 years ago. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok,
I withdraw my nomination And I purged and reloaded to get something legible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept, issues resolved; nomination withdrawn. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Photograph from unreliable Flickr source [1]. Flickr account evidently belongs to Wikipedia uploader, who changed the licensing from "all rights reserved" to "cc-by" after a previous upload on en-wiki was deleted. However, the Flickr account also contains obviously non-self-made items, such as this non-free postage stamp [2]. True source cannot be ascertained. Image must be older than Flickr date, as the person depicted has been deceased since 2009. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Either create some pathway by yourself to upload the images appropriately relating to the matter or dont just keep on deleting as it just conflicts the idea of having wikipedia on the internet when everyone knows that he is the same person who died in 2009 due to sikh extremist attacks then why not accepting his image and his image has been freely available on the internet and has already been floated so much during the attack in 2009. So its a freely distribute image rather than a copyrighted one and which meets the free use policy of wikipedia. 115.252.127.148 15:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The image has not only been floated in the media on the day of attack but is a part of free usage policy without copyright. Anyone who claims it to be copyrighted pls mention the appropriate link to claim so.115.252.127.148 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already gone Denniss (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Empty gallery Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded mistakenly OutroWithBees (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, non-free album cover. ■ MMXX talk 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
no free license (see COM:L). Furthermore it probably is copyfraud to claim copyright on a gradient... Saibo (Δ) 21:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Surely it's just {{PD-shape}}, and the usual thing has happened, "it's WMF, so put {{WikimediaCopyrightWarning}} on it"? Rd232 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-shape}}. WMF shouldn't claim copyright on copyright-ineligible works. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - this got uploaded with a batch via commonist, and I have my default setting to WMF copyright when I include logos (as was done in that upload). I've modified the license on the files. They are not in use anywhere at this time by the Foundation, so I've no urgency about keeping them. However, external parties may or may not want to have this specific gradient available (I'm thinking mostly about parody sites, like Uncyclopedia) in order to make their own "anti-sopa shadow" images. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the explanation. However, tool use is no excuse - I hope you have understood the issue. Note that I have corrected the copyright tag. You had added {{Textlogo}} but I fail to see any logo here. ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept, no copyright violation. Artem Karimov (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence for {{PD-Old-100}}. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This image was published in newspapers at the time in order to show Edward VII opening the Games. It would have been made on commission. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not aware of a custom of killing artists after they finished a commissioned painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not twist my statements in such an offensive way. Being on commission would have involved releasing the rights to the original sketch to the newspaper. I doubt you could identify the original artist in this case and they can safely be labelled as unknown in which case, as you are no doubt aware, PD-Old-100 easily applies. There is no onus on us to prove a negative when it comes to identification of unknown authors to justify a claim of PD. Finding out which newspaper this was originally printed in is not hard to do, I suggest you make basic checks before raising such deletion requests to avoid wasting everyone's time or putting you in the position of appearing to be on an arbitrary personal image stalking campaign against me. --Fæ (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I was not aware of that. Please read {{PD-old-100}} slowly and carefully. A few times. And if you know the newspaper, please add it to the source field. Probably there is some information about the painter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sarcasm does not help your case. Please remember that Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia Review. As for my working on improving these uploads, I would do if I were not having my time wasted with your image stalking campaign and arbitrary deletion requests. You are souring my experience of contributing to Commons, I certainly do know which newspaper this is, and have a handy source. I'm not going to add it for you to twist and use my contributions to defame me and make further sarcastic comments. I would rather see this image deleted. If you were prepared to work with me collaboratively I would happily make such improvements but I can see nothing here but further unpleasant and toxic interactions on any image you decide to use as a weapon against me. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I request civility from all sides, please. (I see no reason to doubt good faith from either Fæ in uploading the photo or from Pieter Kuiper expressing doubt about the license.) Discussion based on relevant copyright law and sourcing is much more appropriate here than various Wikimedians speculating about other Wikimedians opinions of them. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the artist is unknown then this image is now PD, being originally published in 1908. Nobody has suggested a name for the artist so there is nothing to do here as we are not required to prove a negative. --Fæ (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sarcasm does not help your case. Please remember that Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia Review. As for my working on improving these uploads, I would do if I were not having my time wasted with your image stalking campaign and arbitrary deletion requests. You are souring my experience of contributing to Commons, I certainly do know which newspaper this is, and have a handy source. I'm not going to add it for you to twist and use my contributions to defame me and make further sarcastic comments. I would rather see this image deleted. If you were prepared to work with me collaboratively I would happily make such improvements but I can see nothing here but further unpleasant and toxic interactions on any image you decide to use as a weapon against me. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I was not aware of that. Please read {{PD-old-100}} slowly and carefully. A few times. And if you know the newspaper, please add it to the source field. Probably there is some information about the painter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not twist my statements in such an offensive way. Being on commission would have involved releasing the rights to the original sketch to the newspaper. I doubt you could identify the original artist in this case and they can safely be labelled as unknown in which case, as you are no doubt aware, PD-Old-100 easily applies. There is no onus on us to prove a negative when it comes to identification of unknown authors to justify a claim of PD. Finding out which newspaper this was originally printed in is not hard to do, I suggest you make basic checks before raising such deletion requests to avoid wasting everyone's time or putting you in the position of appearing to be on an arbitrary personal image stalking campaign against me. --Fæ (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not aware of a custom of killing artists after they finished a commissioned painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment The artist is Max Cowper, who died in 1911. Hope this information is helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination (although "1911" seems to be the end of floruit; anyway long enough before 1941). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedily kept thanks to Delicious carbuncle. A life span of Max Cowper is documented here with 1860–1911, apparently not just his active time ended in 1911. The latest work he contributed to I could find is a book that was published in 1912 (Princess Mary's Locked Book with four full-page plates by Max Cowper, 1912, held by the British Library). I want to take the opportunity to point out that statements as I doubt you could identify the original artist in this case and they can safely be labelled as unknown should not made that easily. Illustrators in particular are in many cases well-known due to their individual style even if they are not attributed to in the original publication. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
promo photo, e.g. http://www.public.fr/News/Photos/Photos-Benoit-et-Thomas-Secret-Story-4-irez-vous-voir-leur-spectacle-165155, (c) maxppp Polarlys (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. rubin16 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
promo shot, larger and coloured version has many google hits Polarlys (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio rubin16 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio: Copyright holder is Ulrich Fritsch or Frankfurter Literaturverlag. Karsten11 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
It doesn't have the whole compound shown. It only has nitrite attached when there is more than that. --Addihockey10 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This image appears to me to depict the correct chemical structure of 2,5-xylidine. Your comment "has nitrite attached" doesn't seem to make sense because there is no nitrite involved (either in the chemical structure or in this diagram). Can you elaborate on what you think is missing? Ed (Edgar181) 14:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Ed. The diagram is looks to me like 2,5-dimethyl-1-amino-benzene (overly systematic name used to explain all the substituents I see), exactly as "2,5-xylidine" should be. Is nom not understanding the implied methyl groups at the unlabeled bond-ends? That's the standard en:skeletal diagram form. DMacks (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedykept since most probably nominated in error. BTW: I updated the image by a new version with a higher resolution. Leyo 15:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Photograph of a presumably copyrightable book cover, hence non-free. Also sourced to known Flickr-washing account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already gone Denniss (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
No license specified Filceolaire (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Dies war ein missglückter Versuch, eine Unterkategorie zu erstellen Wappensammler (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion, accidental creation in the wrong namespace with author requesting deletion in good faith. Schnellöschung. De728631 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already gone Denniss (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Scan of nonfree ID card. Samuell (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Clear derivative work; Delete unless original card can be shown to be free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative Work Captain-tucker (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Pre-existing SVG at File:Flag of Paraguay.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete An average resolution JPEG (wrong format) uploaded with the existing correct SVG. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 00:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 10:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, out of project scope Yarl ✉ 11:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
educational? possibly advertisement? Japs 88 (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Ajatorj (talk · contribs). Advertisement of some sort. No evidence of permission. Also out of Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
_in_print_room,_England.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_print_room,_England.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 23:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
_in_print_room,_England.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio, see: http://www.meetup.com/graphicdesign-21/members/11167547/ Captain-tucker (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
_in_print_room,_England.jpg){kind=link}
Oeuvre dérivée Thomas1313 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Can you please specify whose rights might be infringed and where? The modelist's, in the United States, perhaps? Because in Canada, where both the building and the model are situated, there would not seem to be any problem about publishing that photo, right? -- Asclepias (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: FOP ok in Canada. Yann (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I want to change the name to MirandaNzBirdRinging02.jpg WJV&DB (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - no reason to delete; and what is in a file name? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Normally just add {{rename|MirandaNzBirdRinging02.jpg|insert reason here}} and someone will probably rename it if it is necessary, but filenames really aren't that important (they're only in a single language anyway), just make sure the description is precise - that should be what searches are based on, and of course multi language descriptions will help more people find it. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture Japs 88 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 18:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Invalid license ({{PD-BulgarianGov}} does not apply). Razvan Socol (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the http://www.president.bg/p_bio.php page is licensed under a CC-BY-ND license (and the "No Derivative Works" clause is incompatible with the Commons Licensing policy). Razvan Socol (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This image is from bulgarian government site. --Stanqo (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...and that Bulgarian government site is published under a non-free license. Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Incompatible combination of copyleft licenses. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It's sad when it happens, free licence creators should really think through that eventually and in an explicit clause allow people to create free derivatives incorporating free licences, but currently we are very far from that point. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"Ruslan" on flickr is someone who uploads other authors work to his flickr account. This photo is not own work, the license is nonsense. The flickr user not gave any source for this upload, so there is no evidence that this photo is old or public domain.
I wonder why we support such flickr abuse with bot transfers. Flickr is not the source of this, the flickr uploader is not the author, its a shame for Wikimedia Commons that we make this guy the source and author. What steps must be taken to revert this "paukrus/Ruslan" flickr import? --Martin H. (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete It is unclear how old the photograph is. It certainly is an old photo but there would be no rationale for PD and though TinEye shows much use of the image around the internet, none of these sites appears to make a claim of age or copyright status. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Martin H., these Fæbot uploads are rubbish. And Fæ is not doing any work on the. For example File:Andromeda being saved by Perseus.jpg - no source, no nothing. But with a little bit of looking around, one sees that paukrus/Ruslan had taken this from File:Orlando Furioso 20.jpg (at lower resolution). And then Fæ is moving such crap back here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I count this as at least seven recent deletion requests with personal attacks made by Pieter Kuiper against me. This is blatant harassment. --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and I agree with Martin's additional comments too. --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No way is that the uploader's own work. Why would they upload a 128 x 128 px image? If is from a book/movie poster or similar, I am certain of it. Sitush (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Can't actually find an older use of this on the web, but the watermarking looks suspicious for an alleged "own work" Sitush (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unclear purpose, possible copyvio. Artem Karimov (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. nonsensical dr. Trycatch (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Derivative image of this image that was posted to wowturkey on June 1, 2005 by Julide. (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porsuk river-1.jpg) Takabeg (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Image serves no purpose except to proclaim the personal royal status of its uploader (which does not appear to be widely or significantly recognized by others); also, it is a collage, and the copyright status of its component elements has not been clarified... AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Highly likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Razvan Socol (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete a quite obvious case of copyright violation. User:Vnukovo2801 said here that he used "Flight Simulator 2004" to create this file. --High Contrast (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious licence, as this photo was probably not made by paukrus himself. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete There seems reason to think the image is taken from http://www.rusarch.ru/bocharov2.htm. --Fæ (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Jharnett44 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Abdulsamik (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Alex Deralo (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
and File:Michael Domínguez.JPG. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused text-only logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
and File:Logo Jordy Petit.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo/drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Official poster of the Animaze Animation Film Festival. Highly unlikely, that the uploader is the copyright holder. Armbrust (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture of user without a personal page Japs 88 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio: screenshot of google maps Japs 88 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
unused, of no educational value, probably advertisement Japs 88 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
possibly advertisement: username is same as in picture. unused Japs 88 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture. no educational value Japs 88 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture. no educational value Japs 88 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
no educational value Japs 88 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Japs 88 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
There is no Freedom of Panarama in Russia. I do hope that Russian government will be forced to change that eventually, but so far they are too busy with making money. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC) VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 11:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Modern work (1990) by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in France = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Modern work (1990) by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in France = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Modern work by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in France = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Modern work by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in France = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per request, file has been transferred to frwp. Coyau (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Modern work by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in France = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Modern work by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in France = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
from TV screen Polarlys (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
television screenshot Polarlys (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Modern work by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in France = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
no encyclopedic and educative content, low quality, no description, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This image is out of scope to be kept in Commons. It is the uploader's self-created form of artwork that provides no useful educational purposes. The file is not used in any other Wikimedia project, nor can it be considered realistically to have educational value. —stay (sic)! 08:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I withdraw this deletion request. So far it seems that nothing has been productive out of this and I think this situation should cool down for now. —stay (sic)! 09:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
For a similar Request for Deletion, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw-no-halo.jpg.
- Keep no valid arguments for deletion --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The file is used in more then 10 languages (the request is a big lie) and was the result of the efforts from Pmt7ar. (Read Talk Hentai for further information) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE says,
| “ | A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. | ” |
Kept, File is in use and therefore not out of scope. RE rillke questions? 13:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
pornographic 93.31.224.213 21:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept, inappropriate nomination; free licensed image in wide use in Wikimedia, quality image, previous deletion discussion resulted in kept; no legitimate reason for deletion suggested. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cherkizovskaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Cherkiz-mm.jpg
- File:Cherkizovskaya station name.jpg
- File:Cherkizovskaya station.jpg
- File:Cherkizovskaya.jpg
- File:Cherkizovskaya1.jpg
- File:Cherkizovskaya2.jpg
- File:Cherkizovskaya3.jpg
- File:MS Cherkizovskaya.JPG
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Mostly kept. Comment that nominator linked above refered mostly to buildings and that kind of architecture: in this case we see just a tunnel without any mosaic, pattern or specific design. FoP couldn't be applied just to a inscription on the wall. But I do agree with one image - mosaic is not trivial and is deleted rubin16 (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Okhotny Ryad (Moscow Metro)
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well. Primary architect Revkovsky last mentioned alive in 1975 (could not find precise data).
- File:Ohotniy ryad1.jpg
- File:Ohotniy ryad2.jpg
- File:Ohotniy ryad3.jpg
- File:Okhotny ryad 01.jpg
- File:Okhotny ryad 02.jpg
- File:Okhotny ryad 03.jpg
- File:Okhotny ryad.jpg
- File:Okhotny-mm.jpg
- File:Okhotny Ryad Moscow 1945.jpg
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Deleted image without source. Again, I can't say that FoP applies to the inscript on the wall or just a tunnel with trivial tiles on the walls/floor: yes, I do agree that in the comment that nominator sends us to, sysop says about complicated design but here I don't see anythning specific or complicated rubin16 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Biblioteka Imeni Lenina
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well. No information about architects' deaths therefore delete per COM:PRP.
- File:Bib-Lenina-mm.jpg
- File:Biblioteka Imeni Lenina 01.jpg
- File:Biblioteka Imeni Lenina 02.jpg
- File:Biblioteka Imeni Lenina 03.jpg
- File:Biblioteka imeni Lenina subway 1.jpg
- File:Biblioteka imeni Lenina subway 2.jpg
- File:Biblioteka Imeni Lenina.jpg
- File:Biblioteka imeni lenina1.jpg
- File:Biblioteka imeni lenina2.jpg
- File:Biblioteka imeni lenina3.jpg
- File:Biblioteka lenina Barry Kent2.JPG
- File:BibliotekaImeniLenina1953.jpg
- File:Mosaic Portrait of Lenin at Moscow subway.jpg
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Again, just simple utilitarian design in the station, no specific patterns, colour design or something like that. I would say that picture on ".. Imeni Lenina 03.jpg" is not trivial but 'de minimis' is applied here but not for 'imeni lenina2.jpg' or 'mosaic portrait of lenin at moscow subway' - they are deleted rubin16 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Krasnogvardeyskaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: mosaic in the two last picture is kept per 'de minimis', others kept, too, as per previous nominations rubin16 (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Vorobyovy Gory
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
File:Escalator (Vorobyovy Gory, Moscow, Russia).jpg- File:Escalator gallery in Vorobyovy gory.JPG
- File:Escalator gallery Vorobievy Gory.jpg
- File:Gazebo in Vorobyovy gory.JPG
- File:MetroMoskwa2.jpg
- File:Metromost.jpg
- File:Small zoo in Vorobyovy gory.JPG
- File:Sparrow mountains.JPG
- File:SS100701.JPG
- File:Stands in Vorobyovy gory.JPG
- File:Vorobievy gory1.jpg
- File:Vorobievy gory2.jpg
- File:Vorobievy gory3.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Sparrow Hills). Moscow, Russia.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory 01.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory 03.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory metro station in Moscow (09-05-2006 at night).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory Metro Station in Moscow.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory subway 2.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory subway 3.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory subway 4.jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory subway station (Moscow Metro).jpg
- File:Лужнецкий-метромост-01.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
._Moscow,_Russia.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Remove, I do not mind. -- Aleksb1 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Escalator (Vorobyovy Gory, Moscow, Russia).jpg -- lolwut? File:Vorobievy gory1.jpg --
WTF? @Artem Karimov, where do you see any architecture here? It's very similar to the "dura lex" guy -- he nominated even piles of sand (no exaggeration) because of "no FOP in <subst your country here>". Trycatch (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is no originality test in Russia. Therefore precautionary principle takes place. Artem Karimov (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Escalator (Vorobyovy Gory, Moscow, Russia).jpg is not about the architecture, but about the elevator machine. File:MetroMoskwa2.jpg is a skyline and not a derivative from architectural work. File:Stands in Vorobyovy gory.JPG is not about the architecture. File:Vorobievy_gory1.jpg is a text. Other images are really not free.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Vorobyovy Gory metro station in Moscow (09-05-2006 at night).jpg Keep. Here is talk about deletion this file: Commons:Deletion_requests/Aleshina. Serguei S. Dukachev (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all due to mass, low-quality nomination and maybe renominate Bulwersator (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing to copyright in most cases. Yann (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Exhibits in Vorobyovy Gory metro station
[edit]Derivative photos of some temporarily shown works of applied art. Needs definitely a permission from the creator(s).
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6285358401).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6285358487).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6285877988).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6285878096).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6285878422).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6289065989).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6289066187).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6289066419).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6289585172).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6289585964).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6291368715).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6291369117).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6291369283).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6291369451).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6291889734).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6294060257).jpg
- File:Vorobyovy Gory (Воробьёвы горы) (6294060393).jpg
_(6285358401).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6285358487).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6285877988).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6285878096).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6285878422).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6289065989).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6289066187).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6289066419).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6289585172).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6289585964).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6291368715).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6291369117).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6291369283).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6291369451).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6291889734).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6294060257).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6294060393).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A.Savin 16:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete As per nomination. russavia (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Strogino (Moscow Metro)
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Strogino station (Moscow Metro).jpg
- File:Strogino subway station 01.JPG
- File:Strogino subway station 02.JPG
- File:Strogino subway station 03.JPG
- File:Strogino subway station 04.JPG
File:Strogino subway station 05.JPG- File:Strogino subway station.JPG
- File:StroginoStation.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Novoyasenevskaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Bitsevskiy Park.jpg
- File:Bitsevsky-mm.jpg
- File:NovoYasenevo 01.jpg
- File:NovoYasenevo 03.jpg
File:NovoYasenevo 04.jpg
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- last image does not fall under No-FOP. What copyrighted there? Letters or box design?--Anatoliy (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ulitsa Starokachalovskaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - this is ridiculous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Базарный_Карабулак (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope images, most of which seem like unsourced derivative works.
- File:B.karabulak ..1.jpg
- File:B-karabulak1.jpg
- File:Базарный Карабулак.jpg
- File:Б. Карабулак район.jpg
- File:Baz.karabulak.jpg
- File:Ограда ритуальная.jpg
- File:Базарный Карабулак ритуал.png
- File:B-karabulak 2.jpg
- File:Б.Карабулак ритуал.jpg
- File:Karabulak ritual.jpg
- File:B-karabulak 1.jpg
- File:Гранит памятник Б.Карабулак.jpg
- File:Б.Карабулак ограда.jpg
- File:Б.Карабулак гранит памятник 1.jpg
- File:Б.Карабулак гранит памятник.jpg
- File:Базарный Карабулак памятник гранит.png
- File:Б.Карабулак памятник гр.jpg
- File:Базарный карабулак памятники.jpg
- File:Б.Карабулак РИТУАЛ.jpg
Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 16:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
All the files in Category:Monuments in Volzhskiy
[edit]- File:Volzhskiy - Karbyshev memorial 01.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Karbyshev memorial 02.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Lenin Memorial.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Lenin statue on Lenin square 01.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Lenin statue on Lenin square 02.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Lenin statue on Lenin square 03.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Lenin statue on Lenin square 04.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Loginov monument 01.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Loginov monument 02.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Monument in commemoration of 25th anniversary of Volzhskiy Damb 01.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Monument in commemoration of 25th anniversary of Volzhskiy Damb 02.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Monument in commemoration of 25th anniversary of Volzhskiy Damb 03.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Volzhskiy - Sverdlova square - Sverdlov monument.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I'm sorry for making the mistake and uploading these files. I have not understood that Russia (unfortunately) has no FOP, and thus these need to be deleted. It really saddens me, but i believe that it's best they will be deleted per my request than somebody having to spend time tracking them down one by one. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Beta M as indeed there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. The corresponding article about the central place in Volzhskiy, ru:Площадь Ленина (Волжский), which is the location of the Lenin statue, tells that this statue was erected in 1984. The city itself was founded in 1951. While a previous settlement existed, it seems apparent that all statues were created after this foundation date. Therefore, they all appear to be still under copyright protection. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow-City
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia.
- File:(02-04-2009) Москва-Сити.JPG
- File:Berezhkovskaya 16-18 view to City 01.JPG
- File:Berezhkovskaya 16C2 PP 01.JPG
- File:Berezhkovskaya 16C2 PP 04.JPG
- File:BusinessCenter-p1030292.jpg
- File:BusinessCenter-p1030295.jpg
- File:BusinessCenterFromNovodievivhi-p1030364.jpg
- File:CITY-1a.jpg
- File:Delovoi Tsentr Moscow At Night.jpg
- File:Delovoi Tsentr under construction Moscow.jpg
- File:FED night1.jpg
- File:FED3-11.jpg
- File:FED3-12.jpg
- File:FED3-13.jpg
- File:FED3-14.jpg
- File:FED3-16.jpg
- File:FED3-17.jpg
- File:FED3-18.jpg
- File:FED3-2.jpg
- File:FED3-20.jpg
- File:FED3-3.jpg
- File:FED3-4.jpg
- File:FED3-5.jpg
- File:FED3-6.jpg
- File:FED3-7.jpg
- File:FED3-8.jpg
- File:FED3-9.jpg
- File:FedBashnya2007.jpg
- File:File-Moscow-City 02-04-2010 2.jpg
- File:IBC 04.09.2007 coth.jpg
- File:KrilovPatPonds.JPG
- File:Leningradskaja002.JPG
- File:Mibc-stone.jpg
- File:Mos 15.jpg
- File:Moscow (4).jpg
- File:Moscow center city.JPG
- File:Moscow City (272639212).jpg
- File:Moscow City (MIBC).JPG
- File:Moscow City - 2009-08.jpg
- File:Moscow City 09.24.2011.jpg
- File:Moscow city 1.jpg
- File:Moscow City 16.05.2008 (2).jpg
- File:Moscow City 16.05.2008 (3).jpg
- File:Moscow city 2008 01 23.jpg
- File:Moscow City landscape july 2008.jpg
- File:Moscow City on 21 July 2008.jpg
- File:Moscow city.jpg
- File:Moscow City.jpg
- File:Moscow city1.jpg
- File:MOSCOW FT 2007.jpg
- File:Moscow International Business Centre, Marc 2008.JPG
- File:Moscow, Bagration Bridge and Tower 2000.jpg
- File:Moscow, City May 2010 02.JPG
- File:Moscow, City May 2010 03.JPG
- File:Moscow, Peter Fomenko theater.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 02-04-2010.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 2008-11-28.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 2010-05-22.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 28-03-2010 1.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 28-03-2010 2.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 28-03-2010 3 l.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 28-03-2010 3.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 30.03.2008 01.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 30.03.2008 02.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 30.03.2008 03.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 30.03.2008 04.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 30.03.2008 05.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 30.03.2008 06.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 30.03.2008 07.jpg
- File:Moscow-City 30.03.2008 08.jpg
- File:Moscow-City at night, 2008-03.jpg
- File:Moscow-city plan.JPG
- File:Moscow-City-03-10-2010.jpg
- File:Moscow-City-09-05-2010 (2).jpg
- File:Moscow-City-09-05-2010.jpg
- File:Moscow-City-1 mart-2007.JPG
- File:Moscow-City-2 mart-2007.JPG
- File:Moscow-City-20-9-2010.jpg
- File:Moscow-City-9-05-2011.JPG
- File:Moscow-city-creating.JPG
- File:Moscow-city2007.JPG
- File:Moskau PD 2010 026.JPG
- File:Moskiewskie centrum finansowe, 2008.jpg
- File:Msk moscow-city.jpg
- File:North Tower.jpg
- File:Nothern Tower.jpg
- File:Ostrov Fantaziy and Moscow-City.jpg
- File:Pushing a barge on the Moskva River, Moscow.jpg
- File:RIAN archive 171976 First isolated power station in Moscow's power grid, the heat power station Mezhdunarodnaya.jpg
- File:SevernayaBashnya001igor.jpg
- File:Вид на комплекс Москва-сити.jpeg
_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%A1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Artem Karimov (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- I think nominating all these images in one group nomination was a mistake. The one image I uploaded, File:Pushing a barge on the Moskva River, Moscow.jpg, has the Moskva River in the foreground, and a group of about two dozen high-rises in the background. Freedom of Panorama is counter-intuitive, hard to understand, but every other image where I have seen an FOP concern raised, which showed many buildings, did not focus on one specific building, all were determined not to violate our FOP standards. Geo Swan (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I agree that in the normal circumstances panoramas would be excluded as de minimis. Unfortunately, threshold of originality is absent in Russian law and practice so far. We are on the swamp territory and therefore have to take precautions. Artem Karimov (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- So you didn't comment on my suggestion this mass nomination should be withdrawn, and replaced by more focussed nominations.
- Is there a reason you didn't offer your fuller explanation in your original nomination.
- I repeat my suggestion this nomination be withdrawn, and replaced by more focussed nominations. Geo Swan (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- We have no de minimis in Russian law therefore even panoramas are liable to be removed. So no, I will not withdraw the nomination. Artem Karimov (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your assertion that Russia has no recognition of de minimus is extraordinary. It is an assertion you haven't substantiated. Not one person has backed you up. I request substantiation. Geo Swan (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please, explain on Russian shortly what FOP is it in usertalk. For example, in this list my photo of MIBC. File:Moscow-City-03-10-2010.jpg (#73)
- We have no de minimis in Russian law therefore even panoramas are liable to be removed. So no, I will not withdraw the nomination. Artem Karimov (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. I agree that in the normal circumstances panoramas would be excluded as de minimis. Unfortunately, threshold of originality is absent in Russian law and practice so far. We are on the swamp territory and therefore have to take precautions. Artem Karimov (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Image 31 in this list, File:KrilovPatPonds.JPG, is a sculpture, in a park. I suggest that, like File:Pushing a barge on the Moskva River, Moscow.jpg, it is different from the other images in this nomination. The previous thirty images all seem to be views, from various angles, of the construction of a group, or groups of buildings. Geo Swan (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that File:Pushing a barge on the Moskva River, Moscow.jpg can be kept since the buildings represent the background. The monument to Krylov is from 1976 and thus has to be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I mentioned this mass nomination in this village pump note. Geo Swan (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that this mass deletion request is abusive. Artem Karimov has an history of arguing without any valid argument against everybody else. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ул. Стойкости от пр. м. Жукова.jpg and my talk page. Yann (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- How is it abusive exactly? Apart from IDONTLIKETHISNOM? Artem Karimov (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The best way for all this images is to be exported into Russian Wikipedia according to its rules. WXP (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have already suggested this and I hope that action will be taken. We are in fact discussing the images to which FoP regulations do not apply (which may represent significant minority).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Image 40 in this list, File:Moscow City 09.24.2011.jpg. Freedom of Panorama was added.--Strober (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all due to mass, low-quality nomination Bulwersator (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all, as Bulwersator suggests, due to mass, low-quality nomination. The handful of images that show a monument or sculpture in the foreground should be renominated, in a separate nomination. They will probably be deleted. The handful of images that show just a single building in the foreground should be listed in a separate renomination, as they too will probably be deleted. I discourage Artem or any other contributor to renominate any of the remaining images that show complexes of buildings, without substantiation of the assertion that de minimus doesn't apply to them. Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keap all --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per above opinions. I would advise Artem Karimov not to nominate again these images. When there is a real issue, please nominate them in separate deletion requests. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amarenderjannu (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt own work / google image search. / If it is own work, please follow COM:OTRS. Thank you.
RE rillke questions? 15:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No FOP for 2D art in the UK. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia section 62 of the relevant act allows "Photographs, graphic works, films or broadcasts of buildings and sculptures in a public place" as fair dealing. Possibly Commons policy is such that this should then be moved back to en:wp.
Rich Farmbrough, 21:34 14 February 2012 (GMT).
- The dominant element in this photo is a painting; paintings are not buildings or sculptures. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom does not appy to murals (2D art). In this case, the art is the central element of the picture whereby it does not fall under de minimis. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
No real source, no good reason to assume that this is Russian. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to assume there is any copyright problem here either. Pieter Kuiper should make some show of trying to do some research before raising a deletion request. This flickr user has a reasonable track record for early postcards even if some of their other uploads are questionable. The title could be usefully changed as the women are in stockings rather than nude. --Fæ (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. If there is no reliable information about source we must take precautions. Artem Karimov (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The PRP requires "significant doubt", I just don't see that in this case. Considering the nature of the image, and running a precautionary TinEye search, I find it easy to assume good faith when it comes to the pre-1917 date put forward. With such early erotic images, if a photographer's name is not on the image itself, it is unlikely to be determined any other way. Consequently there is every reason to believe the photographer is and will remain unknown and that the image is significantly more than 70 years old. This is not "significant doubt". --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it is pre-1917 and was published in Russia, then it is even irrelevant who the photographer was--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- The PRP requires "significant doubt", I just don't see that in this case. Considering the nature of the image, and running a precautionary TinEye search, I find it easy to assume good faith when it comes to the pre-1917 date put forward. With such early erotic images, if a photographer's name is not on the image itself, it is unlikely to be determined any other way. Consequently there is every reason to believe the photographer is and will remain unknown and that the image is significantly more than 70 years old. This is not "significant doubt". --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The source in the template should probably be fixed, but the error on the image page does not mean that the image needs to be deleted. Everybody can edit and fix it! In addition to that the rest of the page is very well filled in, making it clear what was meant by using Flickr as source. So here i believe that it is a bad faith nomination. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 01:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It clearly says that the source is a postcard scan, and besides, the Flickr uploader, Pauk, is available. You need to assume good faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but we take no chances when it comes to verifiability. Artem Karimov (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, i'm sure that's not "unreasonable chances", after all a person can forge an e-mail to OTRS, one can even forge a signature on a paper and scan that as the proof that the permission was given, a person can edit the EXIF to make it appear to be the same camera that one uses to take other pictures... If we start suspecting everything then the whole system will collapse. And here it's quite reasonable that it's a postcard, because it looks like a postcard, it looks like a postcard from that timeframe even. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some admins are suspecting everything. For example admin Rosenzweig in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heilanstalt Mariaberg OA Reutlingen of 1914.jpg, where we knew a great deal more than here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're right - I don't see how a discussion with only Keeps ends in a Delete. He peed in the pool, so you pee in the pool to get back at him? That's still a problem for everybody else in the pool. Wnt (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some admins are suspecting everything. For example admin Rosenzweig in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heilanstalt Mariaberg OA Reutlingen of 1914.jpg, where we knew a great deal more than here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, i'm sure that's not "unreasonable chances", after all a person can forge an e-mail to OTRS, one can even forge a signature on a paper and scan that as the proof that the permission was given, a person can edit the EXIF to make it appear to be the same camera that one uses to take other pictures... If we start suspecting everything then the whole system will collapse. And here it's quite reasonable that it's a postcard, because it looks like a postcard, it looks like a postcard from that timeframe even. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This postcard is not Russian, it is French. The mark of the photographer (E. Le Delay) has been removed from the image. This Flickr user has been shown to be deceptive in the past and anything in their account is suspect. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- If this is correct, it must be this Ernest LeDeley. We just need to figure out when he died.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- He died in 1917, the problem seems to be resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent, I I withdraw my nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent, I
- He died in 1917, the problem seems to be resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- If this is correct, it must be this Ernest LeDeley. We just need to figure out when he died.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Essential information have been found (and the nominator withdrew his nomination), the file is {{PD-Old}} (author died in 1917).I've fixed the EI according to the finding on this page. PierreSelim (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Why is this photo tagged with a PD-old license? The author of it is unknown (which does not mean much because I suppose this is just speculation) and we do not know if the photographer of this image is dead since 70 years. 80.187.96.241 19:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence for PD-old High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is this photo tagged with a PD-old license? The author of it is unknown (which does not mean much because I suppose this is just speculation) and we do not know if the photographer of this image is dead since 70 years. 80.187.96.241 19:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence for PD-old High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is this photo tagged with a PD-old license? The author of it is unknown (which does not mean much because I suppose this is just speculation) and we do not know if the photographer of this image is dead since 70 years. 80.187.96.241 19:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence for PD-old High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is this photo tagged with a PD-old license? The author of it is unknown (which does not mean much because I suppose this is just speculation) and we do not know if the photographer of this image is dead since 70 years. --80.187.96.241 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence for PD-old High Contrast (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free image. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- When I uploaded this image I wasn't fully aware of the restrictions on derivative images. I agree this image should go. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 16:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No uses NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 19:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Although normally superseded images don't get deleted, this is a mini-size minor-use one, and the crator is properly attributed in the png other image. Be it needed, we can restore. Badseed talk 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. This user keeps uploading personal images using different accounts and various pseudonyms, "Dale S" is one of them (often uses these images to create hoax articles on other projects, see here for background). See also File:DaleS.jpg, File:Daleslaughing.jpg, File:Dalesflames.jpg, File:LegalPicofds.jpg, all the same person in the image. January (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Also the category created by the user. Badseed talk 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a sculpture made in 1999 (refering to [3]), no FoP in Russia. A.Savin 14:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
c'est de l'architecture contemporaine c'est pas libre Aurmegil (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
c'est de l'architecture contemporaine c'est pas libre Aurmegil (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
c'est de l'architecture contemporaine c'est pas libre Aurmegil (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No uses NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 19:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
blurred and not much too see Misburg3014 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
too small, not much to see here Misburg3014 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This software is free as in beer, not as in speech. It can be downloaded by anyone, but not used for commercial purposes (see Appendix B at http://geodacenter.org/downloads/pdfs/geoda093.pdf). The icons on this are arranged in such a way that it makes the screenshot non-free. We would need OTRS permission to keep this image (anyone want to email the author?); otherwise it is a copyright violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 11:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern work by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in Belgium = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
The architect of the building, Pierre Ferret (1877 - 1949) died less than 70 years ago. As there's nofop in France, the picture of this building can't be free. Symac (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
While this is correct, strictly speaking, it seems to me that not much is at stake.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It was pointed out to me in a Peer review of Elias Abraham Rosenberg on Wikipedia (where this image is used) that this image was taken from a journal article published in the 70s but is marked public domain. There's no indication in the journal that the picture was taken long enough ago to be in public domain by now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro)
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:0348.JPG
- File:Mezhduarodnaya st.JPG
- File:Mezhdunarodnaya vestibule.jpg
- File:Mezhdunarodnaya vestibule1.jpg
- File:Mezhdunarodnaya1.jpg
- File:Mezhdunarodnaya2.jpg
- File:Miezdunarodnaja entrance Barry Kent.jpg
- File:Miezdunarodnaja tickets Barry Kent.jpg
- File:Miezdunarodnaja2 Barry Kent.jpg
- File:Miezdunarodnaja3 Barry Kent.jpg
- File:Miezdunarodnaja4 Barry Kent.jpg
- File:Miezdunarodnaja5 Barry Kent.jpg
- File:Miezdunarodnaja6 Barry Kent.jpg
- File:Tonnel Mezhdunarodnaya.JPG
- File:Проход на посадочную платформу.JPG
File:Эскалатор.JPG
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Vystavochnaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Balcony on the station of Moscow Metro Delovoy Tsentre.JPG
- File:Delovoi-Tsentr.jpg
- File:Delowoj centr entrance Barry Kent.jpg
- File:IMG 0342.JPG
- File:IMG 0343.JPG
- File:Surface hall of station of Moscow Metro Delovoy Tsentre.JPG
- File:Under hall Delovoy centre.JPG
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Smolensky Metro Bridge
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well. No information about architects' deaths.
- File:Metrobridgemm.jpg
- File:Moscow, Smolensky Bridge, Rusich train.jpg
- File:Moscow, Smolensky Bridge.jpg
- File:Smolensky Metro Bridge Emblem.jpg
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Aviamotornaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Aviamotornaya 03.jpg
- File:Aviamotornaya 04.jpg
- File:Aviamotornaya 05.jpg
- File:Aviamotornaya 07.jpg
- File:Aviamotornaya 10.jpg
- File:Aviamotornaya.jpg
- File:AviamotornayaMoscow.jpg
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Annino (Moscow Metro)
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Annino (Moscow Metro).jpg
- File:Annino-mm.jpg
- File:Annino-mm1.jpg
- File:Annino-mm2.jpg - shows about nothing, not undeleted
- File:Annino-mm3.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Chekhovskaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Otradnoye (Moscow Metro)
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Otradnoe-mm.jpg
- File:Otradnoe.jpg - low-res dupe, not undeleted
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Krestyanskaya Zastava
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Krestian 01.jpg
- File:Krestian 02.jpg
- File:Krestian 03.jpg - shows mosaics, not undeleted
- File:Krestian 04.jpg - ditto
- File:Krestian 05.jpg - ditto
- File:Krestian 06.jpg - ditto
- File:Krestian 07.jpg - ditto
- File:Krestian 08.jpg
- File:Krestzastava-mm.jpg
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dubrovka
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Dubrov 01.jpg
- File:Dubrov 02.jpg
- File:Dubrov 03.jpg
- File:Dubrov 04.jpg
- File:Dubrovka (MosMetro) 7.06.07.JPG
- File:Dybrovka.jpg
_7.06.07.JPG){kind=link}
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Maintenance close. Files were since deleted by separate DR's. Badseed talk 16:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ulitsa Skobelevskaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Moscow Metro Ulitsa Skobelevskaya 2.jpg
- File:Moscow Metro Ulitsa Skobelevskaya 3.jpg - extremely blurred, out of scope, not undeleted
- File:Moscow Metro Ulitsa Skobelevskaya 4.jpg - ditto
- File:Moscow Metro Ulitsa Skobelevskaya 5.jpg
- File:Moscow Metro Ulitsa Skobelevskaya 6.jpg - ditto
- File:Moscow Metro Ulitsa Skobelevskaya 7.jpg
- File:Moscow Metro Ulitsa Skobelevskaya 8.jpg
- File:Ulskobelevskaya-mm.jpg
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ulitsa Gorchakova
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a post-1945 sculpture, no FoP in Russia. A.Savin 15:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No freedom of panorama in Russia, most certainly less than 70 years passed since designer's death. Artem Karimov (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect information. It violates the law Smartuser79 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Why? -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given. Sreejith K (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
date and source of publication missing (according to copyright template) Saibo (Δ) 04:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, yeah, that's a problem. But it's clear from the age of the subject in the photo (c50-60 max) and the birthdate of the subject (1921 - es:Italo Pedro De Luca) that the photo was made no later than about 1981, i.e. at least 30 years ago. I changed the license (originally was {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}) to something I thought applied because I disbelieved the "own work" claim. Rd232 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment! In fact, we even do not know if this is a photo - may also be a painting/drawing and for those the law is different - this tag doesn't apply. Okay, so we still have the own work claim with a gfdl+cc license. But, em, yes - according to the user's other uploads Special:Log/RIDEL2010 e.g. File:Zoom_paisa_94.jpg I strongly doubt own work, too. Just that I do not propose a PD tag for which we do not know if it applies. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a fair point - that it's perhaps not even certain it's a photo. Rd232 (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment! In fact, we even do not know if this is a photo - may also be a painting/drawing and for those the law is different - this tag doesn't apply. Okay, so we still have the own work claim with a gfdl+cc license. But, em, yes - according to the user's other uploads Special:Log/RIDEL2010 e.g. File:Zoom_paisa_94.jpg I strongly doubt own work, too. Just that I do not propose a PD tag for which we do not know if it applies. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Rd232 (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the uploader is the copyright owner of this picture since this is the uploader's only image here. This should have COM:OTRS permission. It is also unused. Leoboudv (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The company named in the source seems to have an abandoned site. This says that they are planning to do interviews in 2010, it doesn't say how they were planning to release those interviews and any photos which they would take in the process of this. Can somebody find more? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 00:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The photo in question is a Rap Artist name Stryk. Distribution for his last project, the Thorough Album was given to a music and video distribution company name godistroand the website is under construction. On this link you will find other links to validate the ownership of this photo File:Stryk_I_See_You.jpg
Ohrickscold (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No date, unidentified author (L. J. Lemos?), doubtful whether an ex-libris should be considered "published". Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It's Pedro Joseph de Lemos, I suppose. He died in 1954 or in 1945 (the sources disagree). It's even better if the work was not published -- the author was from the US, so it will be 70 pma without any additional madness. Trycatch (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Modern work by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in Belgium = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this building. --Túrelio (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I will ask for permission. China Crisis (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No reason to assume that this is free; en:Seumas O'Sullivan was Irish and died 1958; the bookplate is signed "LRJ", not clear that it was "published"; the CC license is absurd. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The artist is unknown. The name O'Sullivan on the plate does not mean this was the artist, only that this is the name of the bibliophile. --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not true, it is signed "LRJ". With a bit of effort, it should be possible to find out who that was. In order for this to be kept, it is necessary to know whether or not the artist died more than 70 years ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- While the artist is unknown this is a keep. I suggest you finish your research before raising a deletion request based on speculation. --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fæ's standards are appalling. And this person is conducting training sessions for OTRS volunteers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- While the artist is unknown this is a keep. I suggest you finish your research before raising a deletion request based on speculation. --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not true, it is signed "LRJ". With a bit of effort, it should be possible to find out who that was. In order for this to be kept, it is necessary to know whether or not the artist died more than 70 years ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I don't find this one quite as simple as a similar one. This one - to me - looks like it was a standard template that simply had someone's name put on. However - as with my comments on the other one we need to find out more about it. --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, this one does not looks as if the drawing was custom made, so probably the drawing was really published and sold to different book collectors. Still, it was made by LRJ, probably in Europe, so we would need to know his death year. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I did a little search for LRJ, but having only initials does not make it easy. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Author is George Montague Ellwood, born 1875, died 1955, British. Not free, the CC license is absurd. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ellwood was the author of what, exactly? --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Of this ex-libris. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is the name on the bookplate. It does not make him the designer or the author of the plate itself. --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Of this ex-libris. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Based on an apparently flawed nomination. --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- So - who is the author of the bookplate? That is the real issue. If we can establish who that is it may well be CC. However the prime facie evidence to date is it is the person named I would suggest. --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I think Pieter has it right here. GM Elwood is the name in small print at the very bottom of the plate, not the Ex Libris name. It is, presumably, the author of the bookplate. As Pieter says, he died in 1955. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Signed "RJ", 1896. The CC-BY license is absurd; can only be kept if PD-Old is proven. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - This suggests it may be Canadian; the authorship of an 1896 bookplate of this same owner is given as "R. Thomson"; 50 years pma is not unlikely. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Standard book plate, published well over 100 years ago. MacKay's name is printed on it as the bibliophile, this does not mean that he designed the book plate or printed it. The designer and publisher is unknown. With regard to SC020 (Canadian bookplate collection), it is not clear whether this refers to the same book plate or not. It should be noted that this document is not held in Canada, it is actually in Philadelphia. Ifs buts and maybes are not reasons to delete a photograph of a document published 115 years ago and for which there is no evidence of any risk of anyone claiming copyright in the future. --Fæ (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fæ really has an awfully poor grasp of copyright law... There is no publisher, an ex-libris is a private label; and it is not anonymous: there is clearly dated and signed by the artist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion requests are not intended as a free forum for you to make personal attacks. Stop making personal attacks. I count at least six deletion requests where you have made inappropriate personal attacks against me including accusation of lying, incompetence and being absurd. Harassing and image stalking other contributors on Wikimedia Commons until they give up on the project is fundamentally against the way Wikimedia projects are intended to function as a collaboration. You have blatantly been image stalking me for the last month.
- Book plates such as this were printed in their thousands for private libraries. The name on the plate is the name of the private library or the collector, it is not the artist. If it were the artist, this would conflict with your previous speculation that the artist is "Thomson". The facts do not read as a deletion rationale. You state that the artist has "dated and signed" this work, where? --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- At the customary place: bottom right hand corner. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see a name integrated into the book plate design, it is not a signature and I can see no date. Are you sure you are looking at the right image? --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have now added an image annotation box for those that cannot follow directions like "bottom right hand corner". The date is September 1896. It says "Del. RJ" (or RT), which is short for "delineavit", "made the drawing". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I call that unknown unless you identify who that is. I suggest you do the research before creating deletion requests based on speculation and then using them an a forum to make personal attacks. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have now added an image annotation box for those that cannot follow directions like "bottom right hand corner". The date is September 1896. It says "Del. RJ" (or RT), which is short for "delineavit", "made the drawing". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see a name integrated into the book plate design, it is not a signature and I can see no date. Are you sure you are looking at the right image? --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- At the customary place: bottom right hand corner. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fæ really has an awfully poor grasp of copyright law... There is no publisher, an ex-libris is a private label; and it is not anonymous: there is clearly dated and signed by the artist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Signed and dated, therefore "anonymous" cannot apply. We need to know when the author died. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 11:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Models are not covered under FOP...??? -...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Models of buildings and landscape are probably copyrighted as a piece of artistic work (this most certainly would be over the threshold of originality), and this appears to have been photographed in a private place, so even if the UAE had FoP, it might still have to go. CT Cooper · talk 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- It must be in public places (No evidence) as normally such expos are in malls......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Models of buildings and landscape are probably copyrighted as a piece of artistic work (this most certainly would be over the threshold of originality), and this appears to have been photographed in a private place, so even if the UAE had FoP, it might still have to go. CT Cooper · talk 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Possibly, although as I alluded to, it doesn't matter here as the UAE does not have FoP, so private and public places are treated the same. CT Cooper · talk 19:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Artistic Works are subject to copyright, No derivatives are considered as copyright free without the CC-SA release by the original artist.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The Flick user paukrus give no source, nor a date, just "from the 1900's"; the CC-BY license is absurd. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This deletion request is based on Pieter Kuiper's feelings rather than facts. Paukrus' track record on early postcards is actually good (the same cannot be said for posters or religious icons) and the printing method and early kitsch subject indicates the date is credible. As the author is unknown a PD-Art template would suit. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- {{PD-Art}} is nonsense for something like this, and totally uncorroborated by any facts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- How strange, didn't I just say that about your nomination? Could you supply some facts, like an author or a date? In the meantime this postcard is self-evidently pre-1941 and the artist is unknown. PD-Art applies as this appears to be a chromolithograph of a kitsch artwork that would have been painted before 1930 of a type that were often commissioned for mass commercial reprint. The postcard is a faithful reproduction rather than creating a new copyright at the time of the reprint. Before calling everything "absurd" and wasting everyone's time on deletion requests apparently raised just to harass me as part of your blatant image stalking campaign, along with a history of appalling personal attacks in deletion requests, please do your research first rather than raising speculative deletion requests for everything you can find in my contribution history. I achieve a great deal on the GLAM programme through collaborative improvement, in the long term you may find that more productive than just attacking and defaming good faith project contributors. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a GLAM art history expert, but very few people would be able to put a definite date on kitsch. Without the hypothetical original, how can you be certain that the original artist is unknown? And a reproduction can easily get a new copyright, see Bell vs Catalda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- The printing technique used itself places this to be pre-1941 and most likely pre-1930s. You may want to read up on printing techniques and their dates. There seems little reason not to assume some good faith here for an obscure cheap postcard reproducing what is likely to be a commissioned one-off graphic made for that purpose and highly likely to be c.1900 as stated by paukrus. The alternative is to put you in charge of Wikimedia Commons, which I am sure you would recognize is an undesirable scenario for our community. --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- paukrus did not state "c. 1900" - that was you today; paukrus may have meant "last century" or maybe "first decade of the last century", I do not know, and we do not know if that was based on anything solid (like a stamp on the other side). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- We can safely assume common plain English. 1900s means the decade from 1900 to 1909. --Fæ (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- paukrus did not state "c. 1900" - that was you today; paukrus may have meant "last century" or maybe "first decade of the last century", I do not know, and we do not know if that was based on anything solid (like a stamp on the other side). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- The printing technique used itself places this to be pre-1941 and most likely pre-1930s. You may want to read up on printing techniques and their dates. There seems little reason not to assume some good faith here for an obscure cheap postcard reproducing what is likely to be a commissioned one-off graphic made for that purpose and highly likely to be c.1900 as stated by paukrus. The alternative is to put you in charge of Wikimedia Commons, which I am sure you would recognize is an undesirable scenario for our community. --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a GLAM art history expert, but very few people would be able to put a definite date on kitsch. Without the hypothetical original, how can you be certain that the original artist is unknown? And a reproduction can easily get a new copyright, see Bell vs Catalda. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- How strange, didn't I just say that about your nomination? Could you supply some facts, like an author or a date? In the meantime this postcard is self-evidently pre-1941 and the artist is unknown. PD-Art applies as this appears to be a chromolithograph of a kitsch artwork that would have been painted before 1930 of a type that were often commissioned for mass commercial reprint. The postcard is a faithful reproduction rather than creating a new copyright at the time of the reprint. Before calling everything "absurd" and wasting everyone's time on deletion requests apparently raised just to harass me as part of your blatant image stalking campaign, along with a history of appalling personal attacks in deletion requests, please do your research first rather than raising speculative deletion requests for everything you can find in my contribution history. I achieve a great deal on the GLAM programme through collaborative improvement, in the long term you may find that more productive than just attacking and defaming good faith project contributors. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- {{PD-Art}} is nonsense for something like this, and totally uncorroborated by any facts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Postcard certainly has the look of circa 1900. However hard to determine copyright status without knowing what country this was published in and what if any text was on the reverse of the card. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If anyone wants to try, it might be worth contacting paukrus and asking them. --Fæ (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I decided to try this out myself and have sent a Flickr mail for clarification. --Fæ (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: NOt enough information to keep it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The paukrus Flickr account does not give a source, CC-BY is false, we do not know who made this or when/where it was published. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This nomination is part of Pieter Kuiper's poorly researched speculative deletion requests made as part of his personal image stalking campaign through my contributions. This woodcut is of St Birgitta (born in 1303) and the print is by Anton Koberger who died in 1513. Perhaps Pieter Kuiper could be encouraged to find something more useful and collaborative for the project to do, rather than raising deletion requests that appear intended to waste everyone's time and remove any possible enjoyment I might have in contributing to Wikimedia Commons? --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- That information was not on the file when I nominated it. But to me Koberger seems a bit anachronistic, compare this. Could you give a source for your identification? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- The source is my education and experience, I am the UK GLAM programme leader for a reason. This image may be touched up but it is still a faithful reproduction of a print from the woodcut. I suggest you do a bit of research, such as a TinEye search or a review on Google Books. It's not hard and probably the sort of thing you should try to improve these image pages, before taking what should be the last resort of raising deletion requests based on your vague suspicions that then waste everyone's time. --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it is so easy, why not do it at upload? But in my opinion, this must have been touched up so much that it gets a new copyright, compare Bell vs Catalda. And it is not obviously old - I still say Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Opinions would probably be worth a bit more if based on real facts rather than your personal speculations, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it is so easy, why not do it at upload? But in my opinion, this must have been touched up so much that it gets a new copyright, compare Bell vs Catalda. And it is not obviously old - I still say
- The source is my education and experience, I am the UK GLAM programme leader for a reason. This image may be touched up but it is still a faithful reproduction of a print from the woodcut. I suggest you do a bit of research, such as a TinEye search or a review on Google Books. It's not hard and probably the sort of thing you should try to improve these image pages, before taking what should be the last resort of raising deletion requests based on your vague suspicions that then waste everyone's time. --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- That information was not on the file when I nominated it. But to me Koberger seems a bit anachronistic, compare this. Could you give a source for your identification? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Modern work (1990) by living architect Christian de Portzamparc and no FOP-exemption in France = copyvio. However, as some images of buildings by Christian de Portzamparc have received a permission by de Portzamparc, an interested user might try to get a permission also for this bulding. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am very sceptical that this constitutes copyvio on Wikipedia. Please cite chapter and verse.--Smerus (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Commons:FOP#France. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Christian de Portzamparc, who is apparently the architect, has the note: "OTRS ticket 2008031910023091 may permit the use of images of buildings designed by this firm." If this is correct, it is probably OK. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Commons:FOP#France. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Paterno statue. File:Paterno memorial.jpg is nonfree at en.wiki.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC) GrapedApe (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Hmm! Wonder if De Minimis could apply here since this image is not a close up of the actual statue itself. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, since the subject of the image is the statue. De minimus might apply if the statue happened to be in the photo of another building where the building was the subject. Not here.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, should be a speedy delete. This is a copyright violation unless it has a OTRS. Crazypaco (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
c'est de l'architecture contemporaine c'est pas libre Aurmegil (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep L'objet de la photo n'est pas spécifiquement l'architecture du bâtiment --Dsant (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The building is the main subject of the image, without doubt. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
inutile G.P 15:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Confirmation d'un risque de contestation d'origine du cliché.--G.P 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
this isn't Own work VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC) VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Longepe. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 23:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This was published in London, not Canada and the copyright that matters is not Service, but the illustrator. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Publicizing a helpless person's photo is (1) morally and (2) legally wrong (at least where i come from), especially when referring to a potentially stigmatizing mental/medical condition. In addition, (3) the photo's caption and context is publishing this person's medical condition which is confidential data. 84.111.135.120 19:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I am leaning towards a keep, but the issue of personal rights of depicted individuals needs to be addressed. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 01:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the alleged realname of the depicted prson from the description. Original uploader was en:User:Allison Stillwell who states to be a nurse on her userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- (comment) i believe that this picture helps people understand this diease. alot of people dont understand because they never seen it im amedical student a im studing this know and this is a wonderfull picture it helped me so i kno it can help more students also im so for keeping it
I moved the image to File:Boy with microcephaly.jpg to wipe out the personal details. For the most part, I agree with the nominator. There is File:Microcephaly.png that can illustrate the condition in a satisfying manner, perhaps even better than this one. - Badseed talk 16:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: An image from the side might be OK, but this clearly identifiable photo is not fair to the subject. Even the USA's very lenient privacy rules would forbid this, particularly since the photographer is, I think, a professional caregiver. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Licence definitely wrong. This is a fairly modern stamp of Jordan, circa 1960s or 70s and therefore presumably still under copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- On what basis do you assume that photographs of Jordanian stamps are copyrighted? Golf Bravo (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please check license correction and close this nomination.Golf Bravo (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- The licence is a little ambiguous as it talks of official documents and photocopies. I think it is reasonable to think that a stamp is an official document and a scan is probably the same as a photocopy, but the date of this stamp is unknown and whether the law was retrospective for older stamps is not stated. Unfortunately the original text linked is in Arabic so a translation of the original to English would be helpful. I will try to find out the date of the stamp later. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is a 1966 stamp according to my catalogue. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- The licence is a little ambiguous as it talks of official documents and photocopies. I think it is reasonable to think that a stamp is an official document and a scan is probably the same as a photocopy, but the date of this stamp is unknown and whether the law was retrospective for older stamps is not stated. Unfortunately the original text linked is in Arabic so a translation of the original to English would be helpful. I will try to find out the date of the stamp later. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: In most countries stamps are not "official documents" -- unless an Arabic speaker can come up with a better reading here, it goes. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rizhskaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
File:Rizh 01.jpg- File:Rizh 02.jpg
- File:Rizh 03.jpg
- File:Rizh 04.jpg
- File:Rizh 05.jpg
- File:Rizh 06.jpg - shows artwork, not undeleted
- File:Rizh 07.jpg - ditto
- File:Rizh 08.jpg - ditto
- File:Rizh 09.jpg - ditto
- File:Rizh 10.jpg - ditto
- File:Rizh 11.jpg - ditto
- File:Rizh 12.jpg - ditto
- File:Rizh 13.jpg - ditto
- File:Rizh 14.jpg
- File:Rizh 15.jpg
- File:Rizh 16.jpg - ditto
File:Rizh 17.jpg- File:Rizhskaya (Moscow Metro).jpg
- File:Rizhskaya metro station Moscow.jpg
- File:Rizhskaya-mm.jpg
- File:Rizhskaya.jpg - low-res dupe, not undeleted
- File:Рижский порт-метро Рижская.JPG - shows artwork, not undeleted
.jpg){kind=link}
Artem Karimov (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Прекратите резвиться, Артем Каримов. В России есть свобода панорамы, и эти дерьмовые фотки никому кроме этого проекта не нужны. Ничьи права не нарушаются, ни имущественные, ни авторские.
Оставить. --Andshel (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Читайте ГК РФ. В России нет свободы панорамы. Artem Karimov (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Half of these are certainly OK. Not sure about others. Yann (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- You have strange views about what is OK and what is not. Artem Karimov (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not much originality in most of them. Yann (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Rizhskaya
Re-opened since the closure obviously was incorrect. I'm not convinced that there is any problem with tunnel images such as File:Rizh 14.jpg, but I fail to see how obvious artworks such as File:Rizh 16.jpg or File:Рижский порт-метро Рижская.JPG would be OK. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Trubnaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:MosMetro Trubnaya 1.JPG
- File:MosMetro Trubnaya 2.JPG
- File:Trubnaya exit to surface picture.jpg
File:Trubnaya mosmetro escalator tonel.JPG- File:Trubnaya Yauza 30-08-2007.jpg
- File:Trubnaya-panneau.jpg
- File:TrubnayaStation1.JPG
- File:TrubnayaStation2.JPG
- File:TrubnayaStation3.JPG
- File:Tsvetnoi Bulvar transition to Trubnaya closed.jpg
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Support For panneau and surface picture. Cannot speak about the others yet.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Varshavskaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Varshavskaya (Moscow Metro).jpg
- File:Varshavskaya station.JPG
- File:Varshavskaya1.jpg
- File:Varshavskaya3.jpg
- File:Varshavskaya4.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I've deleted the artwork, that one was an obvious DW and appeared quite modern. I'm not aware of the the originality tests in Russia, but irrespective, IMO the architect could reasonably assert creative architectural input, so I vote delete on those too. --99of9 (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the artwork should have been deleted, but Keep the others, since: 1) There was a DR where exactly the same pics were kept by lack of originality, also a bunch of DR's on similar objects with similar result - it's a widely trivial architecture of the 1960s after standard projects and 2) the link provided by the initiator together with the argument "no originality test" contains actually no information on this issue and is not to be considered as reputable source. A.Savin 12:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- All these images were already nominated for deletion and kept. There is no reason to discuss them any more. AndyVolykhov (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Architect could reasonably assert creative architectural input. unclear copyright status FASTILY (TALK) 01:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Barrikadnaya
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well.
- File:Barrikadnaya columns.jpg
- File:Barrikadnaya exit.jpg
- File:Barrikadnaya exit2.jpg
- File:Barrikadnaya exit3.jpg
- File:Barrikadnaya ukazatel.jpg
- File:Barrikadnaya view.jpg
- File:Barrikadnaya view2.jpg
- File:Barrikadnaya-metro-barelyef.JPG
- File:Barrikadnaya-mm.jpg
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Barrikadnaya-metro-barelyef.JPG Русский: Можете удалять - в ру-вики загружена копия данной моей фотки--Vladislavus (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 07:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I doubt this is an own work; the uploader said the image was from the 1990's but the flag of Libya to the right was scrapped in the 1970's and was not used again until just recently. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Same with the former flag of Laos at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Laos_%281952-1975%29.svg (the flag since 1975 and should be in that photo is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Laos.svg ) User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
uploaded by a user with a lot of copyright violating uploads, please send a permission (COM:OTRS), doubtfully own work
- File:João Bá - Divulgação 01.JPG
- File:João Bá - Divulgação 02.JPG
- File:Joaoba.jpg
- File:Joao-e-nanah.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
User has uploaded files as own work. However some are book covers, one is a stamp and File:Robert Service during the "Spoiler" with Marlene Dietrich.jpg is shown here as being by Universial Studios.
File:The Roughneck. A Tale of Tahiti by Robert Service.jpgSee Template:PD-Canada-creator --UncivilFire (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)File:Rhymes of a Red Cross Man by Robert Service.jpgSee Template:PD-Canada-creator --UncivilFire (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)File:Rhyme & Romance by Robert Service cover book.jpgSee Template:PD-Canada-creator --UncivilFire (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)File:Robert Service and his wife Germaine in October 1913.jpgSee Template:PD-Canada --UncivilFire (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)File:Robert Service and the Dawson Cabin.jpgSee Template:PD-Canada --UncivilFire (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)File:Robert Service during the "Spoiler" with Marlene Dietrich.jpgSee Template:PD-US-no notice --UncivilFire (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)File:Robert Service on "Coquette Canoe" on the Yukon RIver.jpgSee Template:PD-Canada --UncivilFire (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)File:Robert Service Canadian Commemorative Stamp.JPGQuick deletion asked, see Template:PD-Canada-stamp. --UncivilFire (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)File:Bar Room Ballads books.jpgSee Template:PD-Canada-creator --UncivilFire (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather Talk 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have come across File:Rhyme & Romance by Robert Service cover book.jpg on Recent uploads and have already proposed it for deletion myself, so i guess it makes it clear that my vote is Delete. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 01:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept those that are Canadian, deleted those book covers first published elsewhere. Note that for book covers, it the illustrator's death that starts pma, not the author's. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
User Toxyd overwrote the original image with a totally different one without licensing it; the copyright status is therefore unknown. Handcuffed (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Only one version in the file history. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 01:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you look in the edit history you'll see it has been replaced. Don't know how it happened. Handcuffed (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
User Toxyd overwrote the original image with a totally different one without licensing it; the copyright status is therefore unknown. Handcuffed (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why does file history show only one version? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 01:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was wondering that too. But if you look in the history you'll see it was replaced. It's not letting me re-upload the original because it says it's in the archive. Handcuffed (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- And here it isn't displaying the original either, although 02 and 03 are displayed. What is going on here?
Can some admin look at this? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- And here it isn't displaying the original either, although 02 and 03 are displayed. What is going on here?
- I was wondering that too. But if you look in the history you'll see it was replaced. It's not letting me re-upload the original because it says it's in the archive. Handcuffed (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No real source, false author, false license; I am not convinced that this is pre-1917. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Pieter Kuiper seems to be having a bad track record on these, no facts presented apart from Pieter Kuiper's suspicions during his blatant image stalking campaign, apparently intended to stop me from making any positive contribution to Wikimedia Commons. I have invited Pieter Kuiper to discuss improvements with me, but he seems incapable of collaborating while he has the free forum of Wikimedia Commons to make derogatory allegations and deride me with sarcasm. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Was kept by admin Fastily without reason. But the CC license is obviously false; there is no real source, paukrus did not respect copyrights. 95.195.158.142 21:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This is Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), refer to whois. Can an admin please block this as another socking IP address. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As before, the paukrus Flickrstream was a perfectly good source of pre-1917 postcard scans. This is one of them and Pieter Kuiper, arisen as an anonymous sockpuppet IP, has yet to show any evidence to suspect otherwise. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept, per all respondents to last deletion discusison, per admin decision from last deletion discussion, per comments from respondents to this deletion discussion, and please note the blatant violations of site policy to commit block evasion by the nominator. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Pushkinskaya (Moscow Metro)
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Russia, no originality test in Russia as well. Photo with Jimbo should be deleted too because apart from primary object doctrine Russian law mandates non-commercial use (unacceptable on Commons) as well.
Artem Karimov (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be deleted since it's not a copy of a copyrighted work.
- V-ball (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: and one deleted 01:40, 6 September 2012 by Fastily. Closed by . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)