Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/07/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Authors wish and unused. Too small anyway... http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0:%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B3/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%9B#.D0.A1.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.B5_.D1.81.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B5 WhiteWriter speaks 00:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use, very low resolution, there is a better equivalent micki 08:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Authors wish and unused. Too small anyway... http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0:%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%B3/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%9B#.D0.A1.D1.82.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.B5_.D1.81.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B5 WhiteWriter speaks 00:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use, very low resolution, there is a better equivalent micki 08:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I did a mistake: I wanted to create Category:UCI Cycle ball World Champions W like wiki (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/supporters-of-libyan-strongman-moamer-kadhafi-gather-nachrichtenfoto/111037399 Rillke(q?) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Getty images are accepted? If they are sourced, with the permission? Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Replaced with a new image, and changed the details too as it was taken some other day, please review the latest one. Clarificationgiven (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: A case of flickrvio. The flickr user isreusing content from a source, which never agrees (per their terms of service) to free content licenses. The flickr user is not the copyright holder and not allowed to publish this photo under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- P.s.: This applies to all files from that flickr user, thats a collection of unfree files, clearly identifiable as unfree because the flickr software shows us the EXIF description below the image [1]. Theres a reason why this user is blacklisted at COM:QFI. --Martin H. (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/supporters-of-libyan-strongman-moamer-kadhafi-gather-nachrichtenfoto/111037399 Rillke(q?) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Getty images are accepted? If they are sourced, with the permission? Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Replaced with a new image, and changed the details too as it was taken some other day, please review the latest one. Clarificationgiven (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: A case of flickrvio. The flickr user isreusing content from a source, which never agrees (per their terms of service) to free content licenses. The flickr user is not the copyright holder and not allowed to publish this photo under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- P.s.: This applies to all files from that flickr user, thats a collection of unfree files, clearly identifiable as unfree because the flickr software shows us the EXIF description below the image [2]. Theres a reason why this user is blacklisted at COM:QFI. --Martin H. (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a music album cover which is copyrighted 188.104.126.80 07:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Official seal of Beta Sigma Zeta sorority; claim of own work is not credible GrapedApe (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: already replaced with non-free version at en.wiki:File:Beta Sigma Zeta.jpg--GrapedApe (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom, apparent copyright violation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Probable COM:COPYVIO as a derivative work: Two views of 2012 Olympic opening ceremony, from two different locations unlikely for the same person to be at, from a user whose understanding of "Own work" has been a problem in the past. Closeapple (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed that it's unlikely they photographed from both locations. This image seems to prove the torch pic] is from the press box. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Proof! I just found the stadium fireworks picture, it's a Reuters/Tim Wimborne image. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)----
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What new could be added to Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons already has a large number of images of the human penis, and has no use for poorly photographed additional images. Uploader: Please consider turning your camera to something other than your own crotch if you wish to contribute useful photos. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
We would need permission from Dr. Busker, since this is a US photo. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: My mistake, is in England. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
From some porn show, serves no realistic educational purpose without cropping/anonymizing. 68.173.113.106 19:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Photo of a pornstar who has articles on 5 different wikipedias. No reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
edqffqfffffffffffffffffffqds 197.29.131.195 22:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
At least two of the components are still copyrighted, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle 84user (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted; derivative work contains copyrighted material and cannot be free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Still copyrighted, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle. Contrary to claims by archive.org, US copyright records show this was in fact renewed. 84user (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. This is from that same cartoon; same copyright status as other images from the cartoon. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong Filename, will be uploaded again as 2012_06_25_02_Re_4_4_III_11354.jpg Lord Koxinga (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please move file, or use template:move to fix problems like this. File moved to a new name, you may request deletion of redirect as wrong/misleading Bulwersator (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, Got it. Can I remove the deletion request, since you've moved the pic already to the correct filname? Lord Koxinga (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, why not? Bulwersator (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, Got it. Can I remove the deletion request, since you've moved the pic already to the correct filname? Lord Koxinga (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, also created only to vandalize Spanish Wikipedia Ileana n (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Lots of copyright issues here - at least one non-free album cover, lots of images whose sources would have to be tracked down. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
![9 File:"Head of a circumcised penis".JPG](#File:"Head_of_a_circumcised_penis".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![57 File:"The Admirable" Crichton - geograph.org.uk - 254057.jpg](#File:"The_Admirable"_Crichton_-_geograph.org.uk_-_254057.jpg){kind=link}
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_615572.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_CC-115_Buffalo_454_(34407).jpg){kind=link}
![15:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/07/28#c-EugeneZelenko-2012-07-28T15:49:00.000Z-File:"Head_of_a_circumcised_penis".JPG){kind=link}
![21:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/07/28#c-Infrogmation-2012-07-28T21:54:00.000Z-File:"Head_of_a_circumcised_penis".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
does not meet project scope, see also com:people smial (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Work by notable artist so in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As the artist got relevance on WP as painter this photo, like his others, is - prooved also by the non-professional setting and technique - his hobbyist photos. Or shall we now illustrate prominent persons with their dogs and paintings? --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value --KS aus F (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)- Keep not identifiable. & work by artist (who is also a photographer) + illustration of female genitalia + a sexual pratice (ice stimulation) therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic or historic value. Just because it's the work of a "known" artist doesn't mean it has value to society in this image archive. Raeky (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Kept 2 times before (see hereand no new or valid reasons given for deletion. So it has to be kept again. Author is notable artist, so it is in scope. ChristianBier (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Nude photo 203.17.70.161 03:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy Keep; nominator gives no reason to delete this file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- not any censorship: Keep dontworry (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept - not a valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Seems to be just plain porno and completely outside the project scope. You can rub your genitals with anything; how is this special? 68.173.113.106 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept as per every time before - like him or not, Klashorst is a notable artist, and thus his photos are within scope. Not saying they're special, but they are within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal picture, single upload/edit from user. Funfood ␌ 21:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Who is this? The corresponding Wikipedia article is up for speedy deletion. Unless notability can established or that article is not deleted, the image should be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 21:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused logo(?), single upload from user, out of CPM:PS Funfood ␌ 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that the license is correct. The not very good described source http://www.kalbarprov.go.id/ has a clear copyright declaration (C) 2003-2012 Pemerintah Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, which would mean not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- What license should it be? I got the picture directly from the Governor's office. The officer who gave me the picture said that it can be used and distributed as long as not for commercial purpose or any purpose that could harm the reputation of the Governor himself. User:Tengnang 21.30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- "as long as not for commercial purposes" is forbidden on Commons. All Wikimedia projects are free content projects, commercial reuse must be allowed. Read Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well then, if it should be deleted, then it should be. User:Tengnang 21.50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: noncommercial restriction Denniss (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
derivate work of a Coca– Cola advertising Ginés90 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The license on this image is not clear. The webpage given says there is a content on the page both fully copyrighted and under CC-BY-SA, only the latter being fine for Commons. However, the inclusion of a photo showing copyrighted logo and the resulting derivaitve work issues raises questions on if copyright law is properly enforced here - it is also unclear if the website has any affiliation with the school. CT Cooper · talk 21:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The license is clear. The interface of the hosting service is unlicensed and the contents published in the pages of the user boclairacademylibrary are licensed under CC-by-sa 3.0. The librarian probably did not realize that she should put a special restrictive notice about the school's logo on the webpage, but that does not affect the validity of the license for the rest of the contents on the webpage. The affiliation of the website to the school does not matter for the copyright of the photos of the website, but the website is actually affiliated to the school, as it is clear from the school's website [3]. If someone is motivated to do so, the small version could be replaced advantageously by the larger original size. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the website was not affiliated with the school, then there decision to upload someone else's logo under their own copyright would have raised a credibility issue, although clearly this point is mute - apologies for not being clear there. CT Cooper · talk 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Everything now seems to check out and I have completed the license review, although really the full resolution version should be uploaded. Given other uploads from this account and the way the original upload was carried out, the fact this falls under a free license is probably little other than a coincidence, but a fortunate one at that. CT Cooper · talk 20:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thanks, I obviously agree with the decision this should be kept OrangeM16 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Completely wrong filename, will be uploaded with correct name again 2012 07 25 03 Re 4 4 III 11352 1 Lord Koxinga (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Naming issues are not a reason to delete. Files can easily be renamed; see Commons:File renaming and request a informative useful new name on the image per instructions. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Renamed the file. Materialscientist (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Completely wrong filename, will be uploaded with correct name again 2012 07 25 03 Re 4 4 III 11352 1 Lord Koxinga (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Naming issues are not a reason to delete. Files can easily be renamed; see Commons:File renaming and request a informative useful new name on the image per instructions. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Renamed the file. Materialscientist (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Instalaciones Club Deportivo Yahualica De los altos.jpg Froztbyte (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down version of File:Alianza.gif. Froztbyte (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Basically a scaled down version of File:Insignia-MARISTA 2.tif. Froztbyte (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Wknight94 talk 02:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 03:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 03:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 03:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
![03:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/07/28#c-Wknight94-2012-07-28T03:06:00.000Z-File:"The_Admirable"_Crichton_-_geograph.org.uk_-_254057.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
![00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/07/28#c-Fastily-2012-08-04T00:04:00.000Z-File:"The_Admirable"_Crichton_-_geograph.org.uk_-_254057.jpg){kind=link}
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_615572.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_615572.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 03:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_615572.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_615572.jpg){kind=link}
Photo of presumably copyrighted building in country without freedom of panorama Ghouston (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Photo of a presumably copyrighted building in a country without freedom of panorma Ghouston (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Incorrect license; author Adolph de Meyer died in 1949; not yet dead 70 years. (Nice image and rather old -- if there is some indication that it was first published for example in the US or pre-Revolution Russia, it might be PD for other reasons, but it is not {{PD-Old}} until 1 Jan 2020.) Infrogmation (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hindi_transliteration.jpg. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Logo of a fan fiction http://espionagedb7.deviantart.com/gallery/28734949 Not used anymore. Robot Monk (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
wrong names form image & another reason Princemirza (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
wrong img & another reason so plz... delete Princemirza (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
subject died in 1982, own work claim questionable, original image is used on gururaodeshpandesangeetsabha.com Hekerui (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
no educational use without description Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
plz.... deleted Princemirza (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
plz.... deleted Princemirza (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
plz... deleted Princemirza (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
plz... deleted Princemirza (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
plz... deleted Princemirza (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
plz.... deleted for name change.....related Princemirza (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 20 number.svg. 84.61.167.13 09:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 21 number.svg. 84.61.167.13 09:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 22 number.svg. 84.61.167.13 09:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 23 number.svg. 84.61.167.13 09:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 24 number.svg. 84.61.167.13 09:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 25 number.svg. 84.61.167.13 09:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Too small for being usable. Funfood ␌ 10:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful claim of authorship 180.180.148.46 10:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful claim of authorship 180.180.148.46 10:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Completelely wrong filename, will be uploded with correct name 2012 07 25 03 Re 4 4 III 11352 2Lord Koxinga (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, Max Ernst died 1976 Alinea (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Completelely wrong filename, will be uploded with correct name 2012 07 25 03 Re 4 4 III 11352 2Lord Koxinga (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Commons is not a repository for contemporary text. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki, IMHO it may be complex enough to be copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
According to enwiki copyrighted in UK Bulwersator (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
According to enwiki copyrighted in UK Bulwersator (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki, IMHO it may be complex enough to be copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Picture does not come from set of 140,000 pictures from Anefo with CC0-license, it comes from Spaarnestad ( http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/start/1/tstart/0/q/zoekterm/Foreman ). Robotje (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo; unused, uncategorized; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Picture does not come from set of 140,000 pictures from Anefo with CC0-license, it comes from Spaarnestad ( http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/start/29/weergave/detail/tstart/0/q/zoekterm/Frazier ). Robotje (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Picture does not come from set of 140,000 pictures from Anefo with CC0-license, it comes from Spaarnestad ( http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/start/0/tstart/0/q/zoekterm/Coen%20Moulijn ). Robotje (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Picture does not come from set of 140,000 pictures from Anefo with CC0-license, source doesn't mention Anefo ( http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/start/0/tstart/0/q/zoekterm/Nesty%20wint%20in%20Seoul ). Robotje (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Self-promotional image of a long standing Sock. refer his case on English Wikipedia over here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: the content is essentially raw text. Hystrix (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only logo of company with questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
unused personal picture Robot Monk (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
self promotional picture Robot Monk (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki, IMHO it may be complex enough to be copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki, as "the restrictions on this logo make it non-free by Wikimedia's Definition of Free Cultural Works". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_Mozilla_logo Bulwersator (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
|
This file has been superseded by Mozilla Thunderbird logo.png. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent. Reason to use the other file: "A PNG version of this file is now available."
|
|
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
"the restrictions on this logo make it non-free by Wikimedia's Definition of Free Cultural Works". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_Mozilla_logo Bulwersator (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
According to enwiki "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, Mexico" Bulwersator (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Self promotion Robot Monk (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Photo of user, not in use anywhere, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. See [4][5][6] 79.224.249.242 17:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
User uploaded the file as fair use on en-wiki and own work on Commons the same day. Uploader only have this one file on Commons. I found no hits on Google so do not have proof that it is a copyvio. I suggest someone else have a look and if it is kept the "disputed" tag should also be removed. MGA73 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
File on en-wiki was deleted per this discussion. It was sourced to http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/m/munoz_marin.htm and uploaded as fair use. MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
no evidence of permission Robot Monk (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
out scope, advertising. no educational value (only use was for speedy-deleted-as-spam article by indef-blocked-as-advertising-only accounts (including associated with uploader) on en.wp) DMacks (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't trace this to a particular website using Google reverse image search, but this has all the hallmarks of being taken from a website given issues with other uploads by this user, and the very low resolution and black border around the photo. CT Cooper · talk 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
With a file of this size and content I find it hard to believe that it is actually "own work" as claimed. It rather looks like it is cropped from some file found somewhere. Per the precautionary principle, I nominate it for deletion. Rosenzweig τ 21:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to have this image deleted as it is no longer available for free public usage. I am the photographer and owner of this photo. Nicolemoysa (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that the en.wp user is the author. For File:Triumph.trItalia.jpg he is, yes, also the original description contains an authorship statement. But this one uploaded with no authorship information and the advertisings that I not checked yet, no way. Uploader isnt copyright holder. Martin H. (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Uploader on en.wp is not the author. In the en.wp article the uploader describes this as "Triumph Italia brochure"s , so this is scans from marketing materials that the uploader cant upload under GFDL. Martin H. (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems a clear work of Russia, a life+70 nation, by an author who died in 1947. Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Nearly identical to File:Acid3 reference.png. It is not stated with which browser exactly it was taken. So it also doesn't prove that a certain browser passes Acid 3 test. Torsch (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a work based on a copyrighted sculpture, i.e. the Premier League trophy PeeJay2K3 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
out of scope Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 00:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Personal unused photo; Commons is not Facebook. --Andrea (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deletepersonal photo --S_____ebli 14:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete If you want to show your pictures, try Myspace. Fma12 (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 03:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep A public inscription without any figurative or graphic content is covered by FOP; in addition this is a 3D work.--Fæ (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- See closure note at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Urquhart Castle Entrance Passage sign.jpg for precedent. Wknight94 talk 15:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a precedent as not three dimensional. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it was just as three-dimensional as this one. Wknight94 talk 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- So this means that the deletion request was incorrect as it is a 3D work, not a 2D work and so FOP clearly applies. As for the text, the only thing that is not a statement of fact, is the final line which is a straightforward interpretation of John 4:16, from the Bible[7]. --Fæ (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- So was the precedent. Wknight94 talk 23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand your references to "precedent" based on an image I cannot see. The facts for this image are clear, and the fact that the Deletion request was flawed by referring to this as a 2D work. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's okay. The closing admin will see the similarity to that image and likely make a similar determination. Wknight94 talk 03:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, in which case I can't see the point of anyone without Commons admin rights taking part in this discussion. --Fæ (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's okay. The closing admin will see the similarity to that image and likely make a similar determination. Wknight94 talk 03:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand your references to "precedent" based on an image I cannot see. The facts for this image are clear, and the fact that the Deletion request was flawed by referring to this as a 2D work. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- So was the precedent. Wknight94 talk 23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- So this means that the deletion request was incorrect as it is a 3D work, not a 2D work and so FOP clearly applies. As for the text, the only thing that is not a statement of fact, is the final line which is a straightforward interpretation of John 4:16, from the Bible[7]. --Fæ (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it was just as three-dimensional as this one. Wknight94 talk 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a precedent as not three dimensional. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We need to be consistent: we say a coin is 3D, which has much less relief than this. Yann (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 03:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
..jpg){kind=link}
- Keep A public inscription without any figurative or graphic content is covered by FOP; in addition this is a 3D work. --Fæ (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- See closure note at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Urquhart Castle Entrance Passage sign.jpg for precedent. Wknight94 talk 15:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a precedent as not three dimensional. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it was just as three-dimensional as this one. Wknight94 talk 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- If this is a 3D work then the request is incorrect and FOP obviously applies. As for the memorial text (ignoring the stated facts, which could not be claimed as creative), the phrase "always gentle, always kind" in obituaries I can easily find in a newspaper search dating back to the 1950s (Times, 5 June 1950) as well as in standard recommended memorial texts[8], whilst the final line you can find in a hymn dating back to 1871[9]. --Fæ (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it was just as three-dimensional as this one. Wknight94 talk 20:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a precedent as not three dimensional. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: We need to be consistent: we say a coin is 3D, which has much less relief than this. Yann (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
..jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation; this image is ctually by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Georgia Encyclopedia website is copyrighted. Lpdrew (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Yann (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Poorly photographed "Look at my penis" snapshot. Inferior in illustrative quality to many of the hundreds of other human penis images available on Commons. Orphan; nonsense file name. Infrogmation (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Poor encyclopedic quality and it is not used anywhere. Daniel Message 09:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per reasons above. Fma12 (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Dublikat von File:Karte Flughafen-S-Bahn Hamburg.png Flor!an (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Chrishmt0423 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/6442/kyrie-irving. I converted it to a DR based on the fading. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete via example http://www.eastidahonews.com/2012/07/cavaliers-guard-kyrie-irving-breaks-hand/ (15.07.2012, exif: "Copyright 2011 NBAE: Photo by David Liam Kyle/NBAE via Getty Image (...)", transparency = 2 mouse clicks). Gunnex (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
plz... delete Princemirza (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Why? -- 22:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Incertain copyright, might be out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
plz... deleted Princemirza (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- "plz" is not a reason for deletion. Please explain why you think files should be deleted while listing them, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Incertain copyright, might be out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
clearly says copyrighted-unsuitable for Commons Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Yeah, but the copyright is by the uploader. Free use files are still copyrighted, you know. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This Image its OLD Popazo (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not a reason for deletion. Seems a decent quality image; lean to keep unless a particular reason for deletion can be stated. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Yann (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
According to enwiki copyrighted in Canada Bulwersator (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It only has a copyright license because Magog the Ogre changed it to that, because he doubts whether or not this is PD, but isn't brave enough or too lazy to nominate the file down here himself and figure it out one way or the other. I say it's too simple as well. Fry1989 eh? 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Does not meet the threshold of originality. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per reasons above. Not original enough. Fma12 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:TOO#Common law countries, this is above all of their thresholds. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I continue supporting the position that the logo is too simple to be copyrighted. It only consists of a "ESPN" font with no textures or further details. As far as I know, COM:TOO#Common law countries focuses on signatures. Fma12 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Magog's ignorant insistence on Common Law Countries means nothing, because Canadian TOO is closer to the American one than the British, it's a simple fact. You can't blanket cover a bunch of countries all over the world and say they're the same when they vary greatly between each other. . Fry1989 eh? 20:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Magog's "ignorant insistence" is actually based on the information we have, as opposed to Fry's "ignorant insistence" which is based on nothing but a hunch and w:WP:ILIKEIT. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have a flipping clue what I like and dislike, and I have a better understanding of Canadian TOO and copyright than you do, considering I live there. You on the otherhand have such a narrow understanding of copyright that you question even the most simple of images. Anybody who thinks that four simple circles (along the lines of about 300 air force roundels we have on Commons) can be copyrighted is indeed ignorant, and I will not back down or apologize for my use of the term. Fry1989 eh? 00:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- And for the record (in case Magog tries to infer I'm partial to my own country's content), I do not shy away from files relating to Canadian copyright. Just the other day I nominated a file I'd LOVE to be available on Commons, but I understand that version is copyrighted and makes it impossible for it to be here, and I've nominated it before in the past other times it's been brought here as well. I could turn a blind eye, I could leave it to someone else to nominate it, but I don't. I do it myself because I understand why it can't be here. But THIS file here that we're discussing, is too simple. Fry1989 eh? 01:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ad hominems aside, I eagerly await any sort of proof from Fry that the Canadian threshold is higher than that of Great Britain or Australia. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not obligated to prove anything to such a narrow-minded person who half-asses his application of questioning copyright by changing files on English Wiki which had a PD license to a copyrighted license but doesn't bother to nominate for deletion it's Commons equivalent leaving that to others like Bulwersator here, and questions beyond simple images. Maybe tomorrow I'll put a green circle on top of a red one, on top of a blue one, on top of yet a fourth circle in pink, and try to copyright it. While I'm at it I'll try anf copyright the roundel of the Royal Air Force, or some of the other ones we have here. What a joke. You have no clue what you're talking about, it's just posturing to feel important. Fry1989 eh? 01:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ad hominems aside, I eagerly await any sort of proof from Fry that the Canadian threshold is higher than that of Great Britain or Australia. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Magog's "ignorant insistence" is actually based on the information we have, as opposed to Fry's "ignorant insistence" which is based on nothing but a hunch and w:WP:ILIKEIT. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Magog's ignorant insistence on Common Law Countries means nothing, because Canadian TOO is closer to the American one than the British, it's a simple fact. You can't blanket cover a bunch of countries all over the world and say they're the same when they vary greatly between each other. . Fry1989 eh? 20:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- In other DRs I've heard claims that Canadian TOO is somewhat higher than other Commonwealth nations. However we could really use some case law to refer to in this area. In any case let's please be cordial. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe the problem of originality in Canada was addressed in the previous discussion. As we know from Commons:Threshold of originality#Common law countries, the threshold of originality is extremely low in the two known English-speaking Commonwealth of Nations countries. If you read the link under TOO, you will see a) The Edge logo, which was deemed copyrightable simply for a slight tilt in one part of the letter 'E' (UK), and a flag with two colors and a circle (Australia), both of which are less complex than this logo, which uses an italicized, likely non-standard font, has a line through exactly 2.5 of the characters, has a specialized box around the "2", and has different colors for the top row of characters than for the bottom row.
Beware of an addition by User:Fry1989, who, as in the previous discussion and as is usual for him, will likely come along and will deliver loud ad hominems and loud statements that this is below the Canadian threshold, but will not provide any legal basis for his decision. However, Commons bases its decisions on legal precedent, not how loudly or how rudely an individual user may present his case. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Canadian Admiral Ltd. v. Rediffusion Inc says "For a work to be original it must originate from the author; it must be the product of his labour and skill and it must be the expression of his thoughts", and CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada's article on WP says "'that an original work be the product of an exercise of skill and judgment' where 'skill' is 'the use of one's knowledge, developed aptitude or practised ability in producing the work' and 'judgment' is 'the use of one's capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion or evaluation by comparing different possible options in producing the work'. (para 16) As well, '[t]he exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise.' (para 16) Importantly, it is required that the work "must be more than a mere copy of another work." (para. 16) However, "creativity is not required to make a work 'original'." (para. 25)"
- The "specialized box" is just a parallelogram with two rounded corners. And all the text is just in the same font that ESPN uses, which we've established is PD. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I am challenging the established precedence we've shown in the likes of the ESPN logo in Canada. Now terms like "labour and skill" are extremely vague; what one country might term "skill", another would term too simple to show skill. I feel like it would be helpful if we had some sort of precedence. Perhaps I should have brought the issue up at Commons talk:Threshold of originality before doing so here. I will do so now. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete People sometimes claim that the Canadian threshold of originality is higher than the British one, but to my knowledge, no one has ever provided any evidence of this. By reading on pages about FOP and copyright term lengths (photos usually copyrighted for 50 years before some countries extended their terms), it seems that former British colonies usually have a copyright law which is very similar to the British one. Per COM:PRP, I think that we shall assume that any former British colony has the same threshold of originality as the United Kingdom, unless either the country didn't have a copyright law at independence (e.g. USA), or we have known examples of court rulings confirming the opposite. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- The CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada court case explicitly backed away from the UK precedents. I think something in NAFTA had to do with it; Canada agreed to something which edged them closer to the U.S. position (but not all the way). That ruling explicitly rejected sweat of the brow, i.e. the labor part of the UK "skill, judgement, and labour" test. As such, O’Connor J.’s concerns about the “sweat of the brow” doctrine’s improper extension of copyright over facts also resonate in Canada. I would not, however, go as far as O’Connor J. in requiring that a work possess a minimal degree of creativity to be considered original and Requiring that an original work be the product of an exercise of skill and judgment is a workable yet fair standard. The “sweat of the brow” approach to originality is too low a standard. It shifts the balance of copyright protection too far in favour of the owner’s rights, and fails to allow copyright to protect the public’s interest in maximizing the production and dissemination of intellectual works. On the other hand, the creativity standard of originality is too high. A creativity standard implies that something must be novel or non-obvious — concepts more properly associated with patent law than copyright law. and For these reasons, I conclude that an “original” work under the Copyright Act is one that originates from an author and is not copied from another work. That alone, however, is not sufficient to find that something is original. In addition, an original work must be the product of an author’s exercise of skill and judgment. The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise..[10] Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for me I think. The Canadian law may well protect some relatively simple logos, provided they are original -- but in this case the logo is basically reminiscent of the ESPN font, in use long before this one, so I really don't think this is original -- just changing the letters mostly, which is a pretty mechanical exercise. I'm not sure the addition of the reversed "2" is enough either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Despite Magog the Orge's personal and disparaging attack against me, this is factually below Canadian TOO, and it's a Keep per the precedent of the previous DR. Magog, grow up. Fry1989 eh? 20:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- You say that "this is factually below Canadian TOO". What is your source for this statement? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Observation. I don't owe an explanation. Fry1989 eh? 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- And you have a lot of experience in Canadian threshold of originality cases? It's a really thorny subject, and to say "factually below" means there is a court judgement or other official decision specifically on this logo. Otherwise, it's just opinions, and it's helpful to back up that opinion with legal commentary, so that others know where you're coming from. What is below the threshold in one country can be above in another. While in this case I agree with you, since I don't think the logo is "original" when compared with a previous logo like this one. But the UK courts have granted protection to some pretty simple things, and Canada comes from that tradition and precedents, so I can respect opinions to the contrary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I could ask the same thing about Magog the Ogre. Does he have any experience in Canadian case law? I don't think so. All he has is the supposition that Canada has Common Law (which isn't entirely true anyways. but that's another topic) so it must be the same as Britain, when we all know that laws and situations can vary greatly from country to country even when they are based on the same legal system. He attacked me, because I disagree with him. Everything I've said about him is true. He changed this file's license on Wikipedia to a non-free one when it previously had a PD license. He did not however nominate this file on Commons for deletion, leaving that to Bulwersator. Then suddenly when it's kept, he takes an active role and renominates it with the inclusion of an ad hominem attack about me, something he claims I do all the time? Double standard much? Fry1989 eh? 22:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- As always, you've treated this like a match of wills rather than an issue of copyright. Whether and how I tagged it originally isn't relevant to whether it's free. And in any case, as you've been told a dozen times before but which you conveniently continue ignoring, the weight of the evidence is not on the person who nominates the file for deletion, but on the one who wants to keep the file: see COM:PCP. I don't need to present the evidence; I need only to show that there is reasonable doubt that the image is free. And, predicting that any following response will be a personal attack on me and will ignore the evidentiary part of my above statement, in 3... 2... 1... Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "As always, you've treated this like a match of wills". Actually I have not. I've always said that Canadian TOO is closer to the US than they UK, which is an opinion about copyright, not an opinion about Magog the Orge the user. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada provided by Clindberg supports this. What have you provided to say that just because Canada and the UK are Common Law countries, their TOOs are the same (or very very close)? Nothing, only the supposition that they are the same, which is a theory not based in reality. It's like saying that Quebec and France both speak French, so they're the same. You whine that I haven't provided anything legal about Canadian TOO or anything again, again another double standard by you cause you haven't done either. And considering you included in your intro nomination a paragraph trying to discredit me and warn other users to "beware" me, who really is trying to skew things here huh? Fry1989 eh? 03:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Canada still looks to the UK for precedents, especially in copyright law, as the text and concepts between their laws is quite similar. That does not mean they are identical, as NAFTA has required changes to their copyright law which move them a bit closer to the US, but still not all that close -- they do not have creativity as part of their criteria, whereas that is the main criteria for the U.S. Australia (another Commonwealth country) also has decisions which mimic a lot of the old UK rulings, so it's fair to wonder about this one, and bring it up for discussion. Ironically, the EU copyright directives may force the UK to change their own thresholds; there was a case recently where an EU court overrode a UK court decision (not on a graphic work, but something entirely different). We'll see if that happens more often, with other types of work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- "As always, you've treated this like a match of wills". Actually I have not. I've always said that Canadian TOO is closer to the US than they UK, which is an opinion about copyright, not an opinion about Magog the Orge the user. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada provided by Clindberg supports this. What have you provided to say that just because Canada and the UK are Common Law countries, their TOOs are the same (or very very close)? Nothing, only the supposition that they are the same, which is a theory not based in reality. It's like saying that Quebec and France both speak French, so they're the same. You whine that I haven't provided anything legal about Canadian TOO or anything again, again another double standard by you cause you haven't done either. And considering you included in your intro nomination a paragraph trying to discredit me and warn other users to "beware" me, who really is trying to skew things here huh? Fry1989 eh? 03:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- As always, you've treated this like a match of wills rather than an issue of copyright. Whether and how I tagged it originally isn't relevant to whether it's free. And in any case, as you've been told a dozen times before but which you conveniently continue ignoring, the weight of the evidence is not on the person who nominates the file for deletion, but on the one who wants to keep the file: see COM:PCP. I don't need to present the evidence; I need only to show that there is reasonable doubt that the image is free. And, predicting that any following response will be a personal attack on me and will ignore the evidentiary part of my above statement, in 3... 2... 1... Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I could ask the same thing about Magog the Ogre. Does he have any experience in Canadian case law? I don't think so. All he has is the supposition that Canada has Common Law (which isn't entirely true anyways. but that's another topic) so it must be the same as Britain, when we all know that laws and situations can vary greatly from country to country even when they are based on the same legal system. He attacked me, because I disagree with him. Everything I've said about him is true. He changed this file's license on Wikipedia to a non-free one when it previously had a PD license. He did not however nominate this file on Commons for deletion, leaving that to Bulwersator. Then suddenly when it's kept, he takes an active role and renominates it with the inclusion of an ad hominem attack about me, something he claims I do all the time? Double standard much? Fry1989 eh? 22:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- And you have a lot of experience in Canadian threshold of originality cases? It's a really thorny subject, and to say "factually below" means there is a court judgement or other official decision specifically on this logo. Otherwise, it's just opinions, and it's helpful to back up that opinion with legal commentary, so that others know where you're coming from. What is below the threshold in one country can be above in another. While in this case I agree with you, since I don't think the logo is "original" when compared with a previous logo like this one. But the UK courts have granted protection to some pretty simple things, and Canada comes from that tradition and precedents, so I can respect opinions to the contrary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Observation. I don't owe an explanation. Fry1989 eh? 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- You say that "this is factually below Canadian TOO". What is your source for this statement? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Despite Magog the Orge's personal and disparaging attack against me, this is factually below Canadian TOO, and it's a
No consensus to delete. I suppose it isn't unreasonable to apply pd-shape either. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki, IMHO it may be complex enough to be copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely artistic - too complex. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty sure I uploaded this. I know it's okay under fair use for usage on Wikipedia, but it's definitely a copyrighted image/logo. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Added the logo for the article completeness only. But I'm sure this is a copyrighted logo. Thedonz (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
According to enwiki copyrighted in Canada Bulwersator (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Actually that's not true. It's license was PD because it's too simple. It was just changed to a copyright license by Magog the Ogre who doubts whether or not this is PD but isn't brave enough or too lazy to nominate the file himself and figure it out one way or the other. Fry1989 eh? 23:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously does not meet the threshold of originality. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple to be copyrighted. Fma12 (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki, IMHO it may be complex enough to be copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Too complex. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks to me to be simple short text and a circle. Presuming it has some in scope usefulness, Keep -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I have been probably watching other logo so I read this is "too complex". The logo is extremely simple, therefore ineligible for copyright protection. Fma12 (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
According to enwiki copyrighted in New Zealand Bulwersator (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Actually that's not true. It's license was PD because it's too simple. It was just changed to a copyright license by Magog the Ogre who doubts whether or not this is PD but isn't brave enough or too lazy to nominate the file himself and figure it out one way or the other. Fry1989 eh? 23:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Totally agree with Fry1989. Magog the Ogre has changed the license of many files on English WP. Fma12 (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki, IMHO it may be complex enough to be copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Only text and simple shapes. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Simple parallelogram and text. Fry1989 eh? 23:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Text logo, too simple. Fma12 (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Page in userspace included in 50+ files. I think that it should be either deleted and removed from files as misleading or moved to template namespace. Bulwersator (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree.
- It was created back in February 2010 because we had a large number of files on Commons where a duplicate on en-wiki was listed as unfree. Therefore there was a big chance that many of these files was unfree ans should be deleted on Commons. Tagging them with this template was an easy way to mark them all as possibly unfree (and warn users and give an easy overview of all the files).
- Since then most of the files have been checked and instead of renaming the template it would be better simply to check the rest of the files and nominate them for deletion if they are unfree or to remove the tag if they are ok. Once all are checked this template should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
According to enwiki "This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, the United Kingdom. " Bulwersator (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Text logo. Fma12 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused (except in a user-gallery) lower-quality (margins and line-thickness vs font-weight/structure-size) redundant to File:Ethylene oxide chemical structure.png DMacks (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree.
--Vchorozopoulos (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 14:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation [11] 79.224.249.242 17:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are free replacements on-line: [12] [13] . SV1XV (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I doubt this is PD-AustrianGov; no real source is provided, and it seems to be taken from parlament.gv.at, not a law, ordinance or official decree. Darkweasel94 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read the full license: "or because it is of predominantly official use". This image is used officially by the Australian Parliament, that makes it PD by their laws. Keep Fry1989 eh? 19:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am just not sure if that is legally correct; after all, would that mean that virtually everything on all .gv.at websites is PD? Of course if it can be kept legally, then keep it, I’m not just sure if this interpretation of vorwiegend zum amtlichen Gebrauch hergestellt (created predominantly for official use; that’s the wording used in the Austrian copyright law) is really correct. Darkweasel94 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- If that's what the license says, then that is what it is. The German translation "created predominantly for official use" would still mean it's PD, because the image was created specifically for official use as the official logo of the Österreichisches Parlament. Fry1989 eh? 20:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am just not sure if that is legally correct; after all, would that mean that virtually everything on all .gv.at websites is PD? Of course if it can be kept legally, then keep it, I’m not just sure if this interpretation of vorwiegend zum amtlichen Gebrauch hergestellt (created predominantly for official use; that’s the wording used in the Austrian copyright law) is really correct. Darkweasel94 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Fry1989. Yann (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I doubt this is PD-AustrianGov; no real source is provided, and it seems to be taken from parlament.gv.at, not a law, ordinance or official decree. Darkweasel94 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Fry1989. Yann (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lovysinghal as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a logo and hence, copyrighted. To him, it seems to be above the threshold of originality. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC).
- This is a simple PD Text file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC).
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The copyright tag (PD-India) was disputed with the reason "why should this be PD-India, when the artist is a Russian?". Per the article on en-wiki the painter was Born in Russia, took a trip to Asia in 1925-1928 and died in India in 1947. So that could perhaps explain why it is PD-india. Anyway I think we should decide now and not keep the file "forever" as disputed. MGA73 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Where he was born is irrelevant. What matters is where the painting was first published. That's hard to ascertain, but so long as we don't believe it was in the US, and it was in (at least) a PD-50 nation, they were restored to copyright by the URAA. I'm going to start a mass deletion on all his post-1922 paintings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Copied to Wikilivres. Yann (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
According to OTRS ticket:2012071110001693, it is in violation of copyright. It may have been taken down from there Sphilbrick (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment This comes from a FlickR account where the photographer did and still does offer many images under free licenses. This image was there with the non-revocable Creative Commons free license that I saw and the bot checked. I don't know what the OTRS ticket says. Perhaps this was the work of another photographer, included in error (very odd when you compare the similarities with other photographs by this photographer!!), in which case it must go. But if the photographer merely wishes to withdraw the license, what are we to do? Are all this photographers images on a "temporary" version of a Creative Commons license? How about all other FlickR images? It seems very reasonable for a photographer, in need of publicity, to offer images under a free license; and when some of these images (perhaps with the help of exposure on Wikimedia projects) gain commercial value, to withdraw the license so they can demand payment. I have strong sympathy for an artist trying to earn a living, but that's not how a free license works: you can put your photos up "all rights reserved" and know they will be shared to an extent on the Internet but if you pretend to provide them as free content, you're trying to scam those who accept your "free" license. I don't know what Mr. Albov says about this image, but I'm not happy with what's going on. --Simonxag (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The file was flickr reviewed under cc-by-2.0. The OTRS ticket doesn't bring anything new. PierreSelim (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tecnically this is probably 3D if you look really close but never mind that :-D
- I doubt the letters themselves are copyrightable as they look ineligible per {{PD-text}}.
- The question is then if the text as a whole is copyrightable or it is just simple facts that is {{PD-ineligible}} "because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship". I would say that it IS just a bunch of simple facts without original authorship.
- On the English article en:Canongate Tolbooth they quote the whole text and have done so for 2 years so I'm not the only one that have thought that the text lacks original authorship.
- Do we have any cases about plaques? --MGA73 (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, this amount of text is eligible for copyright for sure, especially in the UK where the threshold of originality is very low. Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's plaque of historical information in a public place, on a public thoroughfare, has been there for years and years. There's no copyright symbol on the plaque. Who would be the copyright owners? There's no ownership marking and it is intended for public information, like any plaque attached to a statue (up the road is the statue of David Hume, for example). It falls by common law into for-public use. Bill71.181.26.197 14:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- See closure note at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Urquhart Castle Entrance Passage sign.jpg for precedent. Wknight94 talk 15:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrightable text, no indication of copyright permission or expiration of copyright. Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this restriction, apparently you are right. I don't mind thus the picture to be removed. Ilakast (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- The plaque is 2D, but the whole display is 3D. Yann (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- But the text is copyrighted. We wouldn't allow typing of that text into Wikipedia, why would we allow a photo of that text here? Wknight94 talk 17:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrightable text, no indication of copyright permission or expiration of copyright. Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the U.K. Text is subject to copyright. Wknight94 talk 03:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not particularly bothered if it's deleted as I believe it's unused and it's got a useless filename, but if there's any interest in keeping it, you would be quite capable of arguing it's an integral part of the overall piece of public artwork, as the plaque, the Peter Pan figurine and the stone plinths both the plaque and Peter Pan stand upon are themselves part of a greater public art installation with flower beds and raised walls. The plaque is not isolated in any way from the overall artwork installation. Nick (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrightable text, no indication of copyright permission or expiration of copyright. Not de minimis either. Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in USA GrapedApe (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is FOP in USA, but not for statues, so delete Bulwersator (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment info on authorship and date of statue needed to determine copyright status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted statue, no indication of free license. Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
_CC-115_Buffalo_454_(34407).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_CC-115_Buffalo_454_(34407).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Seems to be a copyright violation. It seems that the copyright holder of this image is still "de Havilland Aircraft of Canada" High Contrast (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
_CC-115_Buffalo_454_(34407).jpg){kind=link}
The same applies to the following images which are included in this DR:
- File:Esso DHC-6-300 Twin Otter N2005.jpg
- File:RCAF (DHC-5A) CC-115 Buffalo 451 (26928).jpg
- File:Delta Air Freight Lockheed L-100-20 N9268R (4481-40C).jpg
- File:Brazilian Air Force (DHC-5A) C-115 Buffalo 2350 (29217).jpg
- File:Brazilian Air Force (DHC-5A) C-115 Buffalo 2359 (31523).jpg
- File:USAF Lockheed KC-130F Hercules 9798 (RG 7921).jpg
- File:USAF Lockheed C-130 Hercules (RH 9002-1).jpg
- File:De Havilland Canada DHC-5A Buffalo CF-YPK (32835).jpg
- File:USAF HC-130P Hercules and HH-3E Jolly Green Giant (RJ 0421-4).jpg
- File:USAF Lockheed NC-130B Hercules 80716 (4878-7).jpg
_CC-115_Buffalo_451_(26928).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_C-115_Buffalo_2350_(29217).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_C-115_Buffalo_2359_(31523).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
_CC-115_Buffalo_454_(34407).jpg){kind=link}
- Yes I know that the copyright of the files I loaded is de Havilland Canada, not mine. l licensed the files with
|
This work has been released into the public domain by its author, de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd.. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
|
_CC-115_Buffalo_454_(34407).jpg){kind=link}
- Thank you for your response. Why are these images in the public domain? You cannot release these images in the public domain without a valid permission of de Havilland Canada. --High Contrast (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- As the pictures were released to be published by magazines, I think they are in the public dominion even if there is any permission.Chesipiero (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just because these images appeared in some magazine does not mean that they are in "public domain" - that's something different. Please read COM:L and Commons:Public domain. Thank you! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- As the pictures were released to be published by magazines, I think they are in the public dominion even if there is any permission.Chesipiero (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Why are these images in the public domain? You cannot release these images in the public domain without a valid permission of de Havilland Canada. --High Contrast (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Misunderstanding of "public domain." Images remain copyrighted even if permission is given for a certain use. Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
_CC-115_Buffalo_454_(34407).jpg){kind=link}
Not good quality of subject Jennygirl (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This file fits the category in which it is showcased - so it should be kept. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
Kept: Unless personality rights are infringed, the file is correctly licenced and in-scope SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 09:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
This photo is taken to far away, my second photo is clearer as sun light falls on my lower freashly waxed region Jennygirl (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is no reason to ask for deletion. Hindustanilanguage (talk).
- Comment What is this "second photo" you allude to? -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- true. the DR lacks clarity. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC).
- I am told it is File:Anna walking 2.jpg. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC).
We can kept both. Yann (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I dont not want my personal nude photo on show Jennygirl (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep You've yourself uploaded the image. If somebody, without your consent uploaded the image, things would be different. Secondly, this is part of a series of such image uploads by you. Thirdly, there no provision of uploader-requested deletion of images, as you release the image with an open license. Fourthly, as Commons is a repository of PD images, we cannot guarantee the image will not be available on any other website (sourced from Commons) or any printed material, even if it agree to remove it. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC).
These series of three private vacation nude photos were upload with out my knowledge and or consent. Therefore would expect them to be removed immediately as possible.
Thank you
- Admins may please check whether the uploader of File:Anna walking.JPG, File:Anna walking 2.jpg and File:Anna Boob job.JPG is the same as the deletion requester in terms of IP and Commons account. Also the comments on the previous DR may also be taken into account in making the decision. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC).
- If one goes by the history of Jennygirl's talk page and the exchange of communication between her and me, she herself was proud of her body and wanted people to see and comment favourably on her nude pics. In that context, how does her claim of "these series of three private vacation nude photos were upload with out my knowledge and or consent" hold water? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC).
Courtesy blank, subject does not nude photos online... -FASTILY (TALK) 03:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Previous published (even in lower res and cropped) via (example) http://s3t.uni-sofia.bg/s3t2010/?page=invited (2010). Considering the other faculty staff-copyvio/no permisson-contribuitions by user: Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have permission from the original author of this file to publish this photo Duncan.Hull (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- This means that the information you added to the project - your own work - is untrue. Please read the basic instructions given to you in the upload wizard. --Martin H. (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
this definitely is not PD-AustrianGov, it is an outdated version of the network map from the oebb.at homepage Darkweasel94 (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
the same map with different source is: File:S-bahn steiermark.jpg, so one of these two should be deleted.
These files show the actual status and are definetly NOT outdated ! Regards KontrollstelleKundl (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- English: I didn’t mean "outdated" in the sense of "no longer valid in its content" but in the sense that the map that can be downloaded from oebb.at uses now a very slightly different style. However, they are so similar even to the currently downloadable map that I do not believe that they really are the original creation of either you or Therapeutix. However, it’s not me who will decide.
- Deutsch: Ich habe nicht "veraltet" im Sinne von "inhaltlich nicht mehr richtig" gemeint, sondern dass die Karte, die es auf oebb.at zum Download gibt, jetzt ein bisschen anders designt ist. Allerdings sind sie auch der aktuell noch herunterladbaren Karte so ähnlich, dass ich glaube, dass weder du noch Therapeutix sie erstellt hast. Aber ich werde das eh nicht entscheiden.Darkweasel94 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
No free use, "kostenpflichtig" Havang(nl) (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
-2012-07-28T09:46:00.000Z-File:Rhh-Jakobsmuschel.jpg){kind=link}
- Only you dont use the Licence!
- Das ganze gilt nur für die Weiterverwendung! Wenn jemand die Lizenzbestimmungen nicht einhält erlaube ich mir dies kostenpflichtig zu machen. kandschwar (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ich bitte daher den Antragsteller, den Löschantrag zu entfernen. Danke kandschwar (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Kandschwar wrote this in sense of licenses „Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike“ and „GNU Free Documentation License“. You can use all content on Wikipedia with a free license, even for commercial purposes, without payment. Now in this case you can choose which license do you want to use. In „Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike“ you have to quote the creator, the license shortcut and you have to set a link to the license to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. In GNU Free Documentation License you also have to quote the creator and you have to quote the whole license text in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt. Only if you act against the law you have to pay in sense of Kandschwar's comment. Kind regards --Jivee Blau (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 00:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on enwiki, IMHO it may be complex enough to be copyrighted Bulwersator (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is {{PD-shape}} compared to many other pd-shape files. But definitely this is not {{Own}} nor any cc-license. --McZusatz (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to ask the permission to keep the photo of Toufoulalogo, cause i work for toufoula and still dont know too much about copyrighted permission. So if there is anything missing about it to keep it i would like to know it. Thank You. Stendek008 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can't claim this is your own work. Please give the correct author and source... --McZusatz (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have to write the author and source and the problem will be solved? Stendek008 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it will as it's pd-shape. --McZusatz (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed that by mistake we uploaded 2 logo pictutre of Toufoula. We have to remove one first or it will be deleted when the deletion request will be removed? cause we need the one with the description on it.Stendek008 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Providing a link to the second version would be helpful. --McZusatz (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I added the source and the author. Can i delete one of them so there will be one picture for the logo? cause the first one i couldnt edited cause it seems my ip is been blocked. Thank You. Stendek008 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Providing a link to the second version would be helpful. --McZusatz (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I added the source and the author. Can i delete one of them so there will be one picture for the logo? cause the first one i couldnt edited cause it seems my ip is been blocked. Thank You. Stendek008 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Providing a link to the second version would be helpful. --McZusatz (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed that by mistake we uploaded 2 logo pictutre of Toufoula. We have to remove one first or it will be deleted when the deletion request will be removed? cause we need the one with the description on it.Stendek008 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it will as it's pd-shape. --McZusatz (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have to write the author and source and the problem will be solved? Stendek008 (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- You can't claim this is your own work. Please give the correct author and source... --McZusatz (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to ask the permission to keep the photo of Toufoulalogo, cause i work for toufoula and still dont know too much about copyrighted permission. So if there is anything missing about it to keep it i would like to know it. Thank You. Stendek008 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Keep I guess FASTILY (TALK) 00:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.167.13 14:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- This provision of Wikimedia Commons is applicable only to the architectural projects and non-outdoor structures. Furthermore, when this issue is doubtful and it's inappropriate disregard the ongoing discussion. raul (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This image depicts modern (copyrighted) works of architecture (buildings) in the UAE. Since the UAE has not FOP provision, this is an unauthorized derivative of the original buildings, and therefore copyvio which needs to be deleted. cmadler (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It is not true. Your argument does not apply to these types of images. Prove it to me? raul (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is a general view, and Burj Dubai is only partially visible. Yann (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Almost the entire photo is taken up by the view of the Burj Dubai development. Certainly, it doesn't show the whole development -- technically no 2D photograph can show all of a 3D work -- but I think the view is broad enough that it can't be called de minimis. cmadler (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Burj Dubai, however it was still under construction (2-11-2009 because the buildind construction ended 4-01-2010), so it should stay on Commons.raul (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Almost the entire photo is taken up by the view of the Burj Dubai development. Certainly, it doesn't show the whole development -- technically no 2D photograph can show all of a 3D work -- but I think the view is broad enough that it can't be called de minimis. cmadler (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: De minimis? FASTILY (TALK) 00:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
this has the same source given as File:S-Bahn Stmk - Netzplan ab 13.12.2010.JPG which I have also nominated for deletion, so probably it was also taken from the oebb.at homepage and is not an official work of the Austrian government Darkweasel94 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
These files show the actual status and are definetly NOT outdated ! File:S-bahn steiermark.jpg and File:S-Bahn Stmk - Netzplan ab 13.12.2010.JPG show the actual status, File:S-Bahn Stmk im Endausbau.jpg shows the future status, parts of it will come to effect in dec. 2012 !
Regards KontrollstelleKundl (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 00:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Marianagodrojas
[edit]- File:Publicidad de mermelada de fresa.jpg
- File:Mayonesa Squezze.jpg
- File:Especias McCormick en los 60.jpg
- File:Navidad en los 90.jpg
- File:Mayonesa Light.jpg
- File:Publicidad de la mayonesa de chipotle.jpg
- File:Mayonesa McCormick en los 60.jpg
- File:Anuncio de revista en los 60.jpg
- File:Publicidad de mostaza.jpg
- File:Nuevos sabores de té.jpg
- File:Publicidad de mostaza en 2003.jpg
- File:Cuento de mostaza.jpg
- File:Ponerle lo Sabroso.jpg
- File:Mayonesa Real.jpg
Publicity of a brand (McCormick) since 1960's (Mayonesa McCormick en los 60.jpg). Not "own work", probably CR; used in a self promotion article in es: (deleted more than once). --Andrea (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete IMO, they're well in scope, as we don't have many modern examples of advertising, and McCormick is a pretty major brand. Unfortunately, I don't see any chance they have been released under free licenses, and hence they must be deleted as copyvios.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
out scope, advertising. no educational value
- File:CelebrityArtists AroundtheWorld.jpg
- File:CELEBRITY ARTIST'S UNIVERSE ..jpg
- File:"YOU'RE IN".jpg
Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 08:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Only use was for speedy-deleted-as-spam article by indef-blocked-as-advertising-only accounts (including associated with uploader) on en.wp. DMacks (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per DMacks - see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nanie Dinsay Steyn. JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Newocean121 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope: screenshots of commercial websites
- File:Toyota-innova.pdf
- File:Hut be phot.pdf
- File:May cham cong.pdf
- File:Bo dam.pdf
- File:Học Viện BAXTER.jpeg
- File:Duhocanh-com-vn.pdf
Robot Monk (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Web site screenshots. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dennis Media (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubtfully own work, different cameras used, pictures found on various websites, also on artists site [[17]]. License unclear.
- File:Somaya Reece on set of Love And Hip Hop Vh1, season 2!.jpg
- File:Somaya Reece.JPG
- File:Somaya Reece Super Woman.jpg
- File:Somaya Reece La Mega Radio "Love and Hip Hop" Performance (2010).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Funfood ␌ 13:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like advertisement materials. No evidence of permission. Also likely to be out of Commons:Project scope.
- File:Proizvodstvo1.JPG
- File:Proizvodstvo2.JPG
- File:Nerox-04.jpg
- File:Нерокс2.jpg
- File:Нерокс.jpg
- File:Membrane 2.jpg
- File:Membrane 1.jpg
- File:Чистейшую воду каждому человеку.pdf
- File:Жизни дающая начало.pdf
- File:Возрождение чистой воды.pdf
- File:Nerox 2.pdf
- File:Nerox.pdf
- File:Трековая мембрана.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Promo articles - out of project scope.
- File:FilterNerox2.pdf
- File:Trekovaya membrana.pdf
- File:Chisteyshaya voda.pdf
- File:Vozrogdenie chistoi vodi.pdf
- File:Nerox-filter.pdf
- File:Zgizni dayshaya nachalo.pdf
Art-top (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Это не промо-статьи, а дополнительные материалы к статье, которая пока находится в инкубаторе--Simpex (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Если данная организация, производитель продукции, владеет авторскими правами на статьи о продукции, то этом может означать: 1) они написаны сотрудниками организации, 2) они написаны под заказ от этой организации. В обоих случаях они не нейтральны, не написаны сторонними незаинтересованными людьми, служат для продвижения продукции, т. е. являются рекламными. --Art-top (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TehelahLisett (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertisement materials. No evidence of permission. Also out of Commons:Project scope.
File:Cherryontlogo.jpgdeleted as duplicate -- Common Good (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)File:Cherryotlogo.jpgdeleted as duplicate -- Common Good (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)- File:Cherryontoplogo.jpg
- File:Cherryontopfrozenyogurt.jpg
File:Cot.jpgdeleted as duplicate -- Common Good (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)- File:Mangospoons.jpg
- File:Cherry on Top Cup.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as nom. Yann (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DaniSchmidtWiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos and album covers. No evidence of permission.
- File:Dani Schmidt - Cruz de Soeldad.jpg
- File:Dani Schmidt - Volveré a Luchar.JPG
- File:Dani Schmidt - Elvis Not Dead II.jpg
- File:Dani Schmidt - Elvis Not Dead III.jpg
- File:Dani Schmidt - Elvis Not Dead I.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Felixfeline (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by The breakers (talk · contribs)
[edit]Who are these guys mimicking the proverbial three monkeys? Unless notability can be established, delete.
- File:Horroroso.JPG
- File:Niklaus.JPG
- File:Lindo.JPG
- File:Vadia.JPG
- File:Cabecao.JPG
- File:Vida loca.JPG
Rosenzweig τ 21:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 00:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)