Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/08/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![6 File:"Beat Cornell" written in snow during "The Social Network".png](#File:"Beat_Cornell"_written_in_snow_during_"The_Social_Network".png){kind=link}
![22 File:"this is awesome" history in the making.JPG](#File:"this_is_awesome"_history_in_the_making.JPG){kind=link}
![34 File:"egzaltacja".jpg](#File:"egzaltacja".jpg){kind=link}
![36 File:"detryment".jpg](#File:"detryment".jpg){kind=link}
![37 File:"Kosmofor - Dźwigacz Świata".jpg](#File:"Kosmofor_-_Dźwigacz_Świata".jpg){kind=link}
![88 File:"African Shack".jpg](#File:"African_Shack".jpg){kind=link}
![89 File:"African Shackdayfinal".jpg](#File:"African_Shackdayfinal".jpg){kind=link}
![90 File:"African Shack2day".jpg](#File:"African_Shack2day".jpg){kind=link}
It is a copyrighted logo TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. INeverCry 15:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a copyrighted logo TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. INeverCry 15:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of project scope, no useful image 
George Miquilena · talk 02:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: File is in use on the uploaders en.wiki userpage. Project scope allows this use. INeverCry 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No appropriate EXIF data, low resolution, availability on multiple sources, hence doubtful authorship. —Bill william comptonTalk 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. INeverCry 15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, poor quality image of some unknown breed dog with large watermark, hence no educational value. —Bill william comptonTalk 03:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. INeverCry 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF data (not counting one generated by Windows Paint), a scene of film– most likely a screenshot, hence copyright violation. —Bill william comptonTalk 03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
![03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Bill_william_compton-2012-08-21T03:21:00.000Z-File:"Beat_Cornell"_written_in_snow_during_"The_Social_Network".png){kind=link}
Deleted: Per nom. INeverCry 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
![15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-INeverCry-2012-08-22T15:43:00.000Z-File:"Beat_Cornell"_written_in_snow_during_"The_Social_Network".png){kind=link}
Commons is not a webhost, and this photo is not being used in any articles. MSJapan (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Out of scope.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. INeverCry 15:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Commons is not a webhost, and there is no reason to have this here. MSJapan (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. INeverCry 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Not used in any project, suspect licensing, Commons is not a webhost. MSJapan (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Only being used to spam articles. Not a webhost. MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio music recording. INeverCry 18:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No valid license, no legitimate use, Commons is not a webhost. MSJapan (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted by Microsoft TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. DW not uploader's to license; too complex to be inelligable. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
No need for assholes ArishG (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader: While human anatomy is within project scope, that does not mean Commons has use for a blurry undescribed uncategorized snapshot of your butt. I hope you can understand this subtle but important distinction. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
A composite of this image of Steve Jobs and another person. Potentially misleading. Yaris678 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. See also en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Kumar Dwivedi. DMacks (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh wow! Delete! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per DMacks. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as garbage. (FYI, I have just deleted the two hoax articles on enwiki.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, prank image; false source & description Infrogmation (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
These are copy righted images that are part of a protected psychological personality test. 70.25.66.162 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Misleading at best. No copyright has been established, and none will be because as best as I can tell they predate 1923 (Rorschach died in 1922) and are public domain. This was the subject of an extensive OTRS complaint back in the day. The real argument deletion proponents are trying to make is that it is somehow "secret" under APA guidelines, which hold no weight here. Swatjester (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Additionally there have been four prior deletion attempts. [1][2] [3] (later deleted due to duplication only)[4]. It's just another attempt by psychologists unhappy that the test is being shown to misrepresent the reasons for deletion as has happened several times before.Swatjester (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Rorschach1.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Inkblot.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rorschach_inkblots.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Rorschach_inkblot_test.gif){kind=link}
Quick close as Kept per Swatjester. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused, have Category:Nimesulide alternatives in better file-formats. This one is a digital-camera image of a printed item and even the original printed item has weird spacing and alignment. DMacks (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, I had previously moved this one from tr.wiki, it's not a very useful image due to better alternatives.--Khutuck (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Leyo 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused low-quality, replaceable by File:Nimesulide.png that more clearly illustrates connectivity of atoms and also does not *mis*illustrate connectivity of "NO2" group (the N not the O part is attached to the ring) DMacks (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Self-promotion by a non-notable individual. The article was already deleted from en.wp. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Doppelt, ist identisch mit File:Patos 32.jpg Koppchen (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate Wvk (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No compelling reason to retain a PDF version when a superior SVG version exists Splintercellguy (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Extremely poor description "kids with cameras doing wonders", without any proper description it's very hard to find any encyclopaedic use of this file (thus, out of the project scope). —Bill william comptonTalk 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
![03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Bill_william_compton-2012-08-21T03:27:00.000Z-File:"this_is_awesome"_history_in_the_making.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete Out of scope. Unremarkable photo of unidentified people in unidentified location doing unidentified activity; uncat since July. Other uploads by same user may be similarly useless. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 01:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![01:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Fastily-2012-08-28T01:23:00.000Z-File:"this_is_awesome"_history_in_the_making.JPG){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Redtigerxyz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted government work with restricted license (see Commons:Copyright#Acceptable_licenses). "allows anyone to use the material for any purpose"; "the material may be used freely by anyone" is not met. Only Restricted derivatives are permitted. "The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context", which is incompatible with commons license. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Failed to correctly reupload from archive. Image does not render. (I need to preserve this version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/04/20120709091807!POL_%C5%9Awiebodzice_COA.svg ) Bonvol (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This image is from 1947, and PD-US template stated that copyright has expired because first publication occured prior to 1923. Smooth_O (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, better alternatives in Category:2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Leyo 08:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: With so many much higher quality equivalents, this file is not useful. Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Bad Jpeg, no sources, bad borders. Replaced by File:Map of Albania during WWII.png. Zoupan (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused and inaccurate Hoodinski (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Was SD candidate. Reason: copyvio because DW. Originally nominated by User:1Veertje 2012-08-06T18:24:01 This is simply a visualisation of the position of aircrafts in the sky. This is an execution of a computer progran with little to none threshold of originality. The image, changing about twice a second is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain. Mattes (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (a puppet is an original creation) Remi Mathis (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.188.39 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be too complex for {{PD-ineligible}}. Stefan4 (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
bo nie umiem go poprawnie opisać prawami licencyjnymi Minium2 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
![11:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Minium2-2012-08-21T11:08:00.000Z-File:"egzaltacja".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Fastily-2012-08-28T01:03:00.000Z-File:"egzaltacja".jpg){kind=link}
bo nie umiem go poprawnie opisać prawami licencyjnymi Minium2 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
bo nie umiem go poprawnie opisać prawami licencyjnymi Minium2 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
![11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Minium2-2012-08-21T11:09:00.000Z-File:"detryment".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Fastily-2012-08-28T01:02:00.000Z-File:"detryment".jpg){kind=link}
bo nie umiem go poprawnie opisać prawami licencyjnymi Minium2 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
![11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Minium2-2012-08-21T11:09:00.000Z-File:"Kosmofor_-_Dźwigacz_Świata".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Fastily-2012-08-28T01:02:00.000Z-File:"Kosmofor_-_Dźwigacz_Świata".jpg){kind=link}
File wrongly tagged as "no license". However, I do not think that the chosen license applies, so probably this will have to be deleted anyways. I very much doubt this file is PD due to lack of creativity. Darwin Ahoy! 11:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused image alleging that the driver of a vehicle with a certain licence plate is a criminal. McGeddon (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
very low quality AtelierMonpli (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I accidentaly uploaded preedited version, corret one is: File:POL Zabrzeg Restauracja pod Zapor.JPG D T G (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Content appears to be a copyright violation, as the image is replica of the CD Cover to the Audio CD The Journey So Far-Recorded Live at Cafe Carlyle. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- File:Guros.jpg
- File:Գուրոս Ինքնանկար.jpg
- File:Գուրոս-2.jpg
- File:Գուրոս-3.jpg
- File:Գուրոս-4.jpg
- File:Գուրոս-6.jpg
- File:Գուրոս-7.jpg
- File:Գուրոս-8.jpg
- File:Գուրոս-ջ.jpg
- File:Գուրոս.jpg
Copyvio. en:Guros died in 1981. Takabeg (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
doubtful uploader has the copyrights, artist that made the cover is Nozzman, a quite known artiist in the Netherlands. See also other uploads Sonty (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
doubtfull uploader has the copyrightsfor this album cover. See also other uploads Sonty (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
commercial, del. on DE, C&P from http://www.rur-online.com/loesungen.html Nolispanmo 13:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
commercial, del. on DE, C&P from http://www.rur-online.com/loesungen.html Nolispanmo 13:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
commercial, del. on DE, C&P from http://www.rur-online.com/loesungen.html Nolispanmo 13:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
commercial, del. on DE, C&P from http://www.rur-online.com/loesungen.html Nolispanmo 13:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
commercial, del. on DE, C&P from http://www.rur-online.com/loesungen.html Nolispanmo 13:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Image appears to violate copyright as it appears to be a duplicate of a publicity photo that can be seen here on OMG Yahoo. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.188.39 14:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Watermark says: "Tamas Zahonyi, IJF official photographer". Contradiction with the description of the picture. Badzil (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I, the image's author, request its deletion as an empty SVG. I'll try uploading in a different filetype. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work,m here in better resolution http://www.cordobaturismo.es/es/contents/2982/casa-capilla-de-los-monjes-minimos Funfood ␌ 17:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
One of the persons contacted me through wikimail. The singer in the picture doesn't want to have his photo online. Gripweed (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of non-permanent art in public place. A.Savin 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of an unidentified, but certainly modern artwork. No FoP in Russia, and no FoP for 3D public artwork in the U.S. A.Savin 18:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of 1960s art of the Soviet Union. No FoP in Russia & no FoP for sculpture in the U.S. A.Savin 18:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Clear derivative of modern artwork in Russia. No COM:FOP in Russia, no FOP for sculpture in the U.S. A.Savin 18:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Clear derivative of modern artwork in Russia. No FOP in Russia; no FOP for sculpture in the U.S. A.Savin 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of modern artwork/statue. No FoP in Russia, no FoP for sculpture in the U.S. A.Savin 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Art-top as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: published here 19 July 2012 and on other sites Ezarateesteban 19:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here the photo was uploaded before that in this link Ezarateesteban 19:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Link to the news feed, they moved. Direct link, message posted July 19, 2012. Uploaded here August 11, 2012. --Art-top (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here the photo was uploaded before that in this link Ezarateesteban 19:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Serial copyvio uploader; image source provided above Эlcobbola talk 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
out of scope mr.choppers (talk)-en- 19:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. No EXIF, tiny size. May be out of scope. INeverCry 19:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.Érico Wouters msg 23:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Versehentlich hochgeladen Metilsteiner (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.Érico Wouters msg 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 20:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.Érico Wouters msg 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.Érico Wouters msg 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 20:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Image non libre (http://www.ensat.fr/fr/news/les_portes_ouvertes_de_l_ensat.html) Tiraden (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as probable copyvio. The same uploader also uploaded File:Vue-ENSAT.png which is a very likely copyvio. jonkerz♠ 23:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. INeverCry 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Image non libre (http://www.univ-toulouse.fr/universite/presentation/etablissements-membres#inp-ensat) Tiraden (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as probable copyvio. The image on the linked size is much larger, so they did not get it from here. jonkerz♠ 23:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Logo -> non libre (http://www.ensat.fr/) Tiraden (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Just text in a jpg, single upload from user, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 20:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a fictional combination of the flags of Afghanistan and the Italian Fascist State. No scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, COM:DW from a pic found often on the net, e.g. here http://www.sanatv.com/vb/showthread.php?18021-%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D8%BA%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%A7-%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%85%D9%83%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7 Funfood ␌ 20:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Too small. Funfood ␌ 21:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Used for promo on 69v01. Trijnsteltalk 21:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Широков..JPG Slou pok (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Широков..JPG Slou pok (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
False copyright claim - under "other information", states that this was sent to him by the owner, and then turn around claims to be the copyright holder in the work. a MikeWazowski (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
![21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-MikeWazowski-2012-08-21T21:48:00.000Z-File:"African_Shack".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Fastily-2012-08-28T01:02:00.000Z-File:"African_Shack".jpg){kind=link}
False copyright claim - under "other information", states that this was sent to him by the owner, and then turn around claims to be the copyright holder in the work. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
![21:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-MikeWazowski-2012-08-21T21:50:00.000Z-File:"African_Shackdayfinal".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Fastily-2012-08-28T01:02:00.000Z-File:"African_Shackdayfinal".jpg){kind=link}
False copyright claim - under "other information", states that this was sent to him by the owner, and then turn around claims to be the copyright holder in the work. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
![21:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-MikeWazowski-2012-08-21T21:50:00.000Z-File:"African_Shack2day".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![01:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/08/21#c-Fastily-2012-08-28T01:02:00.000Z-File:"African_Shack2day".jpg){kind=link}
Text in a jpg, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 21:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Moises-RCDespanyol.jpg Jump to: navigation, search Robertodimatteo (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Moises-RCDespanyol.Jpg 87.10.183.190 06:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio - looks like a news screenshot. INeverCry 23:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Small file, no EXIF. "Own work" claim doubtful. INeverCry 23:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Original version had watermark. Not likely to be "own work". INeverCry 23:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The new photo on file is newer and better. JOHN SHIRLEY, the subject, hates this image, and has repeatedly requested its removal. Please delete, thank you. 50.137.23.38 23:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems not to be in use. --McZusatz (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I'm the uploader. Since we have a better image, and apparently from the original photographer. --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Image was added as part of a self-promotional effort to add :en:Poets Corner Group article 72.244.206.30 23:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This image is asked to be removed to the complaints of author JOHN SHIRLEY (one of the subjects), who has repeatedly requested its removal. Please delete, thank you. 50.137.23.38 23:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems not to be in use. --McZusatz (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. I'm the uploader. We don't have a better image of William F. Nolan, and a cropped version of this is in use there, we should keep that one, but we can live without this full one. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with nominator. Other contributions removed, including by reason of copivio. --Art-top (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Soviet 1960s art in public space, no FoP in Russia, no FoP for sculpture in the U.S. A.Savin 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- How can I illustrate the article then? I uploaded the photo from the US Victorgrigas (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Victorgrigas, self-made images which cannot have a free license due to Copyright Policy on Commons you can upload with a "Fair use" template in English WP. - A.Savin 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- However, I see that the image currently is used on your user page on English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia policy specifically disallows non-free photos on user pages. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Victorgrigas, self-made images which cannot have a free license due to Copyright Policy on Commons you can upload with a "Fair use" template in English WP. - A.Savin 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of non-permanent art in public place. A.Savin 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am curious - where is the policy for this? I have many photos of non-permanent art in public spaces on commons!! I would like to follow rules well.Victorgrigas (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- COM:Derivative works is really helpful in this issue. - A.Savin 05:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iceland. This statue was designed by Einar Jónsson who died on the 18th of October 1954. Snaevar (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
According to the Icelandic Copyright Laws number 73, from 29 May 1972 (http://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1972073.html) there is a 70-year rule of protection. However according to the 16th Article of that law it is allowed to take and publish photos of buildings and works of art that have been permanently located outdoors in public."
Samkvæmt íslenskum höfundalögum frá nr. 73, 29. maí 1972 (http://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1972073.html) gildi 70 ára regla höfundar. Hins vegar segir í 16. gr.: "Heimilt er að taka og birta myndir af byggingum, svo og listaverkum, sem staðsett hafa verið varanlega utanhúss á almannafæri." - Dagvidur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagvidur (talk • contribs) 13:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your quote is correct, but incomplete. The next sentence in paragraph 16 requires payment for commercial use:
- Article 16
- Photographs may be taken and presented of buildings, as well as works of art, which have been situated permanently out-of-doors in a public location. Should a building, which enjoys protection under the rules concerning works of architecture, or a work of art as previously referred to, comprise the principal motif in a photograph which is exploited for marketing purposes, the author shall be entitled to remuneration, unless the pictures are intended for use by a newspaper or in television broadcasting.
- . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I disagree with you. The law allows to publish photos of buildings and works of art that have been permanently located outdoors in public. That is very clear. And why do you say that this is a exploitation for marketing purposes"? Is the information given by Wikipedia based on "exploitation for marketing purposes", or just "fair use" trying to inform general public about statue that has been one of the main landmark in Reykjavik Iceland since 1924? I am just trying to understand the meaning of this... :) - Dagvidur
- Our policy requires that uploaded material is free for any kind of use, including commercial use and the creation of derivatives. As had been explained above, FOP exemption in Iceland copyright law does not give these rights. Therefore we cannot accept photos from Iceland, which would only be free under FOP exemption, because the original artist isn't dead for >70 years. Commons does not and cannot allow so-called fair-use material. --Túrelio (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Lukas Podolski, 2012-08-18.jpg, which is at a higher resolution. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Посмотрите на время загрузки. Мой файл был загружен в 08:06, 19 августа 2012, а у него в 21:08, 19 августа 2012. Vova42RUS 11:13, 21 августа 2012 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant here. We prefer images at the highest resolution possible. --Ytoyoda (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Я могу загрузить файл на Викисклад с более высоким разрешением, но оставить вырезанное изображение. Vova42RUS 11:56, 22 августа 2012 (UTC)
- That works too. But we shouldn't have two images that are essentially the same, and I thought it was easier to delete the one with the lower resolution. --Ytoyoda (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Но изображение будит слишком большим для использования в статьях. Vova42RUS 18:19, 22 августа 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia automatically generates lower resolution thumbnails so it's not a problem if the image is really large. You can read more on this at Commons:Lossy and lossless compression#Use high resolution images. --Ytoyoda (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate image (and unused) PierreSelim (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Texto con derechos de autor. El logotipo posiblemente también los tiene. / Copyrighted text, and possibly the logo too. Diego Grez return fire 19:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hola, creo que tienes razón. Por mí no hay problema con eliminar directamente. Saludos, y disculpen las molestias. Farisori » 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Translation: Hi, I believe you're right. I've got no problem with deleting it straight away. Regards, and sorry for the inconvenience. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of a copyrighted text. PierreSelim (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Karl-Friedrich Höcker, the assumed photographer, died in 2000 only. The copyright tag is wrong, as he was certainly not an US-employee during his service. PaterMcFly (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- the deletion-nomination is an outrage. the deletion reason given is: "Waffen-SS Member Karl-Friedrich Höcker was obviously not a Member of the US Army, therefore the license tag is wrong." no one asserts that the photographer worked for the u.s. army. the author tag clearly says "US Govt office scans of WWII German images by staff of SS Karl-Friedrich Höcker" --repeat: US Govt *SCANS OF*. they are in the collection of the u.s. holocaust memorial museum. the digital versions are US GOVT now: public domain. the film-printed originals were by a government employee of a now-defunct regime (the nazi govt) which has no copyright-assertion capability. you or other users are welcome to adjust the category to one more fitting if you feel an extreme need to do so. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Please calm down a little -- no image is that important. The fact that the US Government scanned the images is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the copyright status -- the scans are a derivative work of the underlying photographs and do not even have a copyright of their own.
- I think that that the nomination is correct -- the copyright is probably held by the heirs of the photographer, Karl-Friedrich Höcker. It may, on the other hand, be held by the German Government -- one of our German colleagues will surely enlighten us on this. In either case, it will be in force until January 1, 2071, seventy years after the creator's death. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- see above 'the film-printed originals were by a government employee of a now-defunct regime (the nazi govt) which has no copyright-assertion capability.' Cramyourspam (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- There was never such a system as PD-USGov in Germany. The image was likely shot by Höcker and, if the image is still copyrighted, then Höcker (his heirs) hold it. --Túrelio (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- see above 'the film-printed originals were by a government employee of a now-defunct regime (the nazi govt) which has no copyright-assertion capability.' Cramyourspam (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion should be centralized at Commons:Deletion requests/File:USHMM 34755 Soletal Solahutte img61 mengele hoess.png. --Túrelio (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 05:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks complex enough to be copyrightable. Stefan4 (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- This file should have the same copyright as which has been available since 2009. Same Defence Force, different insignia Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. That file also has problems. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't {{Non-free symbol}} also apply to this - a military badge? Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- See COM:FU. Fair use isn't allowed on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm curious why you haven't tagged SAAF_maj.jpg if it also has problems? Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done now. Sorry, I didn't have the time to do it earlier. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can I tag this for immediate deletion? Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done now. Sorry, I didn't have the time to do it earlier. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm curious why you haven't tagged SAAF_maj.jpg if it also has problems? Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- See COM:FU. Fair use isn't allowed on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 05:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
SOLO LA FOTO.PARA PODER IMPRIMIR SIN LA FOTO. 190.49.11.9 17:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Por que eliminação? se a imagem é livre conforme link que consta na foto. JMGM (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The image is also here but I can't determine if it is a later or more recent source. Google translates the date of publication on the website as "24 August 1390" which looks like a mistranslation. Can someone who speaks Persian help? The image is also on this website where it might have been since 1388 (no idea what that converts to in Gregorian years). Stefan4 (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- 1390 is 2011 in Gregorian calendar but it can be 2012 too,obviously 1388 is 2009,but it can be 2010 too.BTW can I ask you why you wanna delete the images I upload?Farshid7 (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- The file information page claims that you took the photo. If you took the photo, then why was the file available on an external website 2-3 years ago? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 03:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Youssefmettouchi (talk · contribs)
[edit]After identifying today about +/- 20 uploads by Youssefmettouchi (talk · contributions · Statistics) as copyvio, the question is, how to treat the remainig uploads which I could not verify: The user grabbed the images from several panoramio/flickr/etc.-accounts and blogs/official/etc.sites (sometimes cropped from the originals to hide watermarks), "using" an arsenal of different digicams and/or uploaded the images without exif. IMHO untrusted user who uploaded a bunch of copyrighted material with the consequence that the remaining rest can't be believed either.
- File:Fst fp bm.jpg
- File:Nafora bm.jpg
- File:Assrdon bm.jpg
- File:Beni mellal modj.jpg
- File:Faculté fst.jpg
- File:Tasmit.JPG
- File:Beni mellal tasmit.jpg
- File:Beni mellal forest.JPG
Gunnex (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sisenova00 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution photos without exif (except one). Some of them marked as copyvio. Doubtful authorship.
- File:ФОК.jpg
- File:Загс в Кульсары.jpg
- File:Mechet.jpg
- File:Церковь в Атырау.jpg
- File:Вокзал Атырау.jpeg
- File:Акимат.jpg
- File:Askar.jpg
- File:Драмтеатр.jpg
Art-top (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Low quality photos ass and genitals. On Commons there are many more high-quality images.
- File:Hi dude.JPG
- File:Come on.JPG
- File:Asdufh.JPG
- File:Asdfdwe.JPG
- File:ASS WHOLE.JPG
- File:Go to heaven.JPG
- File:SEXY BACK.JPG
Art-top (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I am an advocate that human anatomy is within project scope, but these images are of low quality, in many cases badly blurred, and lack proper descriptions. Commons already has many images of much superior illustrative quality of relevant anatomy. File names suggest uploader motivated by exhibitionism rather than any intent to create useful in scope content. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PIIG Polska (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution photos without exif (except one), some of them marked as copyvio. Doubtful authorship.
- File:Ryszard sznajder.jpg
- File:Misja Gospodarcza do Indii.jpg
- File:Misja gospodarcza PIIG 2.jpg
- File:Misja gospodarcza PIIG.jpg
- File:Powstanie PIIG.jpg
- File:Ryszard Sznajder.jpg
- File:WTC Poznań.jpg
Art-top (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with the claim that these are below the threshold of originality. South Africa is a former British colony, and the UK and former British colonies typically have a very low threshold of originality, as seen in the Edge logo case (copyrightable because of two diagonal lines) and the Australian flag (two rectangles with a circle on top in some colours).
- File:John Chard Medal2.jpg
- File:John Chard Decoration.jpg
- File:Danie Theron Medal.jpg
- File:Pro Merito Medal.jpg
- File:Pro Merito Decoration.jpg
- File:De Wet Decoration.jpg
- File:Van Riebeeck Medal.jpg
- File:Honoris Crux (1975).jpg
- File:Honoris Crux Silver.jpg
- File:San midshipman.jpg
- File:SA Navy E4.jpg
- File:SA Navy E3.jpg
- File:SA Navy E2.jpg
- File:SA Navy E1.jpg
- File:SA Army E3 rank insignia.jpg
- File:SA Army E2 rank insignia.jpg
- File:SA Army E1 rank insignia.jpg
- File:SA Army 02.jpg
- File:SA Army 03.jpg
- File:SA Army 01.jpg
- File:SA Army 05.jpg
- File:SA Army 06.jpg
- File:SA Army 04.jpg
- File:SA Army 07.jpg
- File:SA Army 09.jpg
- File:SA Army 08.jpg
- File:SA Army 010.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Santiagofont (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Teammassari (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution photos - doubtful authorship. One of them marked as copyvio. Part of the contribution of the user have already been deleted as copyvio.
- File:Alemaniaucreaniabrasilreinas.jpg
- File:Reinas inmigrante 2011.jpg
- File:Casa italiana obera.jpg
- File:Casa Alemana de Oberá.jpg
Art-top (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. See above.
- File:Colectividadpolacaobera.jpg
- File:Balletcechoobera.jpg
- File:Diesfiledelosinmigrantes.jpg - in the previously uploaded copy File:Desfileinmigrantes2011.jpg as a source set site www.fiestadelinmigrante.com.ar (not "own work")
- File:Desfile inmigrantes.jpg
Art-top (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Loshermanosalazar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:SALAZAR.jpg
- File:LOS HERMANOS SALAZAR PIURA.jpg
- File:Los hermanos salazar.jpg
- File:Los hermanos salazar- Grupo criollo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:RaymondWong.jpg
- File:JoeyLaw.jpg
- File:ChristineKuo.jpg
- File:AbellaLeung.jpg
- File:DicksonWong.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete:
Deleted: per Stefan4: obvious copyvios. Martin H. (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:D4b44050ddc011e1a8b522000a1e9e04 7.jpg
- File:ChrisShiflett01.jpg
- File:Patsmear01.jpg
- File:Natemende01.jpg
- File:Taylorhawkins03.jpg
- File:Taylorhawkins02.jpg
- File:Taylorhawkins04.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- File:D4b44050ddc011e1a8b522000a1e9e04 7.jpg is probably the uploader's own work, but it's outside of Commons:Project scope. File:Taylorhawkins03.jpg isn't missing EXIF. It's clearly credited to Theo Wargo/WireImage, so that's an obvious {{Copyvio}}. The rest are also likely copyright violations, so Delete all. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
After today identifying again around 8 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from different blogs etc.) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. See also previous DR above.
Gunnex (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
What Category:Penis still missing?
- File:Erregierter human Penis.jpg
- File:Steifes männliches Glied.jpg
- File:Penis voll erregiert.jpg
- File:Erregierter Penis.jpg
- File:Shaved Penis mit Lusttropfen.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Orphan own penis snapshots of no particular photographic quality and not illustrating anything not better illustrated by hundereds of other photos in Category:Human penis. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mouton1945 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Doogie Howser Main Title.jpg
- File:Sun46.jpg
- File:Povdiner.jpg
- File:Scott Goldstein.JPG
- File:LALAWEMMY1989.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution promo professional photos without original exif.
- File:Jose Aldo.jpg
- File:Benson Henderson.jpg
- File:Anderson The Spider Silva.jpg
- File:Jon Joness.jpg
- File:Jon Jones.png
- File:Jon Jones.jpg
- File:Quinton jackson espy awards.jpg
Art-top (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copy violations deleted and one free file kept Bidgee (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Lev Kerbel who died in 2003. No FoP in Russia, no FoP for sculptures in the U.S.
- File:Karl Marx monument Moscow.JPG
- File:Karl Marx Moscow Russia.jpg
- File:Moscow Russia Karl Marx Prolitarians of the World Unite Statue.jpg
- File:Moskva Karol Marx.jpg
- File:Revolution Square (Moscow), detail of Marx.JPG
- File:Workers of the world, unite! Revolution Square, Moscow.JPG
,_detail_of_Marx.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A.Savin 17:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Monument to Karl Marx at the Revolution Square (Files in subcategories Category:Statues in Moscow)
[edit]All images contain an artwork that are protected by copyright. Not COM:FOP, see COM:FOP#Russia. Wrong licensing. OTRS is missing.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Andrey Korzun (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The sculpture was completed in 1961 by Lev Kerbel (1917–2003). There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2074.
- File:IMG 0377mhs.jpg
- File:Karl Marx - Moscow - panoramio.jpg
- File:Karl Marx Monument Moscow 2020.jpg
- File:Karl Marx monument, Moscow (32049763895).jpg
- File:Karl Marx Moscow statue2019-2.jpg
- File:Karl Marx Moscow statue2019-3.jpg
- File:Karl Marx Moscow statue2019.jpg
- File:Monument -2 (50794973933).jpg
- File:Monument à Karl Marx.jpg
- File:Moscow Karl Marx 20180621-1.jpg
- File:Moscú, varios (2006) 10.jpg
- File:Színház tér, Marx Károly szobra. Fortepan 50322.jpg
- File:Tverskoy District, Moscow, Russia - panoramio (622).jpg
- File:МАРКС.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Kerbel worked during World War II and participated in it, earning him a copyright extension (in Russia) of four years, so the files can be restored in 2078 (not 2074). --Rosenzweig τ 12:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Memorial to Georgi Zhukov
[edit]Derivative of modern public artwork by Vyacheslav Klykov who died in 2006. No FoP in Russia, no FoP for sculptures in the U.S.
- File:Moscow Russia Kremlin-2.jpg
- File:Moskva Marsal Zukov bocny lavostranny pohlad1.jpg
- File:Moskva Marsal Zukov detail.jpg
- File:Moskva Marsal Zukov.jpg
- File:Georgi Zhukov Statue.jpg
- File:Marshal Zhukov monument Moscow.JPG
- File:Statue of Marshall Zhukov.jpg
- File:Zhukov 2 Moscow Russia.jpg
- File:Zhukov 5 Moscow Russia.jpg
- File:Zhukov 6 Moscow Rusia.jpg
- File:Zukowpomnik.jpeg
A.Savin 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:10, 28 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..[5] 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)
Doubt "own work" for the coat of arms, no source. Fry1989 eh? 18:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Please research before nominating. The file is a PNG rendered version of File:Flag of Hong Kong 1959.svg (see closely the filename!!!), that is published under the Public domain, because is an official flag. Remember than the most of the newcommers uses the CC license by default, and the own work is only the result of a license choice, and not an Attribution for bad faith.Assuming good faith implies simply researching first and fill the file description with the proper information and permissions; not all the users do this at first time, but if all users uploads files for bad faith, all of them should be deleted, leaving Commons useless.
- Also, the only valid reason for deletion, is than the file is a reupload of a render of the SVG, that may be a duplicate, but the file page shows that the file is currently used, so is neccesary to edit all of these pages to include the SVG instead of this PNG file. Amitie 10g (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's curently used, because 41.140.163.10 change filename on many "country data templates". Malarz pl (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Per this related DR, Amitie has no clue what he's talking about. It's not sourced, it needs to go. Fry1989 eh? 06:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
.svg.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep National symbols are not copyrightable. Tagging it as PD-textlogo or PD-ineligible should be enough to close the discussion.Fma12 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- National symbols are indeed copyrightable. This file needs a source or it has to go. Fry1989 eh? 20:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It's only the problem of description. ——Naiveandsilly (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is NO SOURCE, unless there is one, it risks being a copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 19:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's only a problem of description. Obviously the uploader is not the author and he cannot attribute the copyright of a national symbol (which are NOT copyrightable). But a simple change of licence should be enough. There is no need to delete the file at all. Fma12 (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- It needs a source, we need to know where it came from. National symbols are indeed copyrightable, and if we don't know where this rendition came from, we don't know it's copyright status, and there's no license that can cover it without knowing it's status. Fry1989 eh? 04:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Renominating because the discussion is meaningless without a source for this rendition of the arms. If they're copyrighted, they CAN NOT be here, and without a source, we simply do not know whether it is or not. Under the precausionary principle, it must be deleted, number of votes for keeps is irrelevant. Fry1989 eh? 19:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete for a different reason: it's a rasterization of File:Flag_of_Hong_Kong_1959.svg judging by the file name. The SVG should be used instead. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Problem is it's not a simple rasterization of our SVG, the arms is very different. It has no source, nobody was able to provide one in the first DR, and it has to go for that reason. I don't care if there were 50 votes to keep it, if we don't know it's status, it can not be here. Fry1989 eh? 21:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 03:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Small size, no EXIF. "Own work" doubtful.
INeverCry 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KineXRecords (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional images. Out of scope.
- File:KineX Logo 2011 xD.jpg
- File:Flak 13 Bullets EP Original Cover .png
- File:BEL0W ZER0 Records September 2011.png
INeverCry 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope.
INeverCry 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all. Per nom.Érico Wouters msg 01:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lilkordayhall (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
INeverCry 20:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Private images uploaded by Prodradio1518 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files are private images. See also the deleted page User:Prodradio1518/Gwenaelle Maillot.
- File:Alexis Vandersteen en couple depuis ce matin avec Gwenaëlle Maillot !.jpg
- File:Alex, la fin avec Gwenaëlle Maillot !.jpg
- File:Alexis Vandersteen et Gwenaëlle Maillot en couple !.jpg
- File:Alex, il est en couple !.jpg
- File:Alex embarque Gwenaëlle Maillot avec lui !.jpg
- File:C'est la fin !.jpg
- File:Que s'est-il passé?.jpg
- File:CA CRAQUE !.jpg
- File:Alexis Vandersteen en couple avec Gwenaëlle Maillot !.jpg
- File:Gwenaëlle Maillot et Alex !.jpg
Trijnsteltalk 21:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Pictures of a minor. Unused. See also the deleted page Tyler Barushak.
- File:Tyler Barushak Cleveland June 2011.jpg
- File:Tyler Barushak 2011. jpg.jpg
- File:Tyler Barushak 2010. jpg.jpg
- File:Tyler Barushak Oct. 2010. jpg.jpg
Trijnsteltalk 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; out of scope personal pix. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Hambach (bei Diez).svg
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}