Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/01/28

Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2004	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2005	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive January 28^th, 2013

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Villawood IDC (8225040703).jpg

Derivative work of the six portrait photos on the banner, which are particularly strongly emphasized by the camera angle. We have no information on the author/publication date/copyright status of these images, but they appear quite recent based on clothing and style and are unlikely to be in the public domain unless they fall under some kind of government-work-exception. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn. Upon reviewing the Flickr stream it appears to be the official Flickr of the agency who created the billboard. They feature other graphic designs by the same department in their stream. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Villawood IDC (8225040703).jpg

Derivative work of the six portrait photos on the banner, which are particularly strongly emphasized by the camera angle. We have no information on the author/publication date/copyright status of these images, but they appear quite recent based on clothing and style and are unlikely to be in the public domain unless they fall under some kind of government-work-exception. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn. Upon reviewing the Flickr stream it appears to be the official Flickr of the agency who created the billboard. They feature other graphic designs by the same department in their stream. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:NicolasEspinoza.jpg

Non-notable person, used promotional article is es.wiki, which is now tagged for speedy deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:April 19th National Cemetery 4.19 국립묘역 (5362362117).jpg

Derivative of (presumably) non-free image. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I deleted this as part of my image cleanup russavia (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KareenaPCA12.jpg

EXIF says the owner is cinerak.co.in Sreejith K (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Entre-Nous (subway advertisement) (6252330273).jpg

Derivative image of a subway ad. FOP in Canada does not apply to 2D works. Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted as part of my cleanup of uploads russavia (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Entre-Nous (subway advertisement) (6252330273).jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.jpg

Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2-buldi-2.jpg

not original poster, but someone's collage Damien86 (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Therockwwechamp.jpg

Copyright violation from WWE.com Ribbon Salminen (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have all the copyright of this image, I have posted everything. --Kskhh (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't, the website clearly states it to be "the exclusive property of WWE, Inc. and its subsidiaries". -- Oaks ter 17:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kskhh has a pretty extensive history of uploading copyvio images and he doesn't seem to learn from his past. When is enough enough?Ribbon Salminen (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete the file and block the user. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation from WWE.com Kskhh (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio from wwe.com Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:IngressBucuresti.jpg

Screenshot from copyrighted software —Andrei S. _Talk 11:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, the map is copyrighted Google maps with some extra layers.—Andrei S. _Talk 16:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lévi-Strauss, montage.jpg

The photo of Lévi-Strauss is under copyright (and was deleted : File:Couverture LAS.jpg) 193.55.175.20 12:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Screenshot AudioExpert.png

Screenshot of non-free software, furthermore protectet music album cover included. Yellowcard (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Yellowcard (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: screenshot of proprietary software --moogsi·(blah) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Yicheongah.jpg

there is no evidence of permission from star.mk.co.kr Puramyun31 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dirk Rabe ProfilbildII.jpg

out of scope, del on DE Nolispanmo 14:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Profilbild D!Raven.jpg

out of scope, del on DE Nolispanmo 14:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vienne milano logo.png

Contrary to the license listed, the text and color scheme meets the low threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. [IP user] 14:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Giganotosaurus model.jpg

No permission. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kulmino, le Panorama spectaculaire 3.jpg

Watermark, small size, probably not own work as claimed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kulmino, le Panorama spectaculaire 2.jpeg

Watermark, small size, probably not own work as claimed . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kulmino, le Panorama spectaculaire 8.JPG

EXIF shows author "Picasa" -- not our uploader or named author. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:06241601a.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:06112012082kmlkllknlk lj l lj clkn lk mk mlk lkm.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abdulwahab john.jpg

Personal picture of user, not in use on a userpage, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdulwahab john.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Albert afeso akanbi.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alejo7.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ashok kamte.jpg

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aswoto My Own Bussiness.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Azharudheen.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Billetfoot-asseol(09-12-2012).jpg

this content is obviously not free Kimdime (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Christopher Eccleston.jpg

COM:LL, screenshot or promotional photo for w:Doctor Who, multiple higher resolution versions around the web (example). Flickr uploader has several such images on their stream, eg [1] which is watermarked. January (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like author of image shared it's lower resoution by cc-by-sa-2.0 --Severnyi (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr uploader is not the author. According to her profile she's a research linguist from California whose "photography skills could use some work". It's not plausible that she would have been engaged by a major British television network to take a publicity photo for Doctor Who. January (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right... This file should be deleted. But we've found free alternative image: File:Christopher Eccleston London.jpg

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kalonji cedric lille ring united.jpg

Possible copyright violation, no own work Stas1995 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Clones.png

Out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abdennour Nyam.jpg

Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DerekMinor.jpg

This is a copyright violation from http://photos.osmek.com/get/50743.o.jpg Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AndyMineoWiki.jpg

Copyright violation from http://photos.osmek.com/get/90902.o.jpg Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See http://reachrecords.com/artists/show/Andy-Mineo- as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KB.jpg

Wrong picture format Nairdeepajayan (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per user request Tabercil (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:KB.jpg

Copyright violation from http://cardboardmagazine.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/kb-hip-hops-indigenous-missionary/ Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hardrockbiloxigustav.jpg

the flickr account associated with this image has several questionable uploads, including a scan of a newspaper, all released under some form of free license. in addition, the low resolution of the images, coupled with the lack of meta, the range of locations, and the difficulty involved in the collecting of these images, maked me suspect flickrwashing 174.141.213.29 00:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kurd infobox.jpg

Copyvio. Including deleted image. Takabeg (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nizami Ganjavi statue in Rome.jpg

Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Italy. Takabeg (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same image was used here on June 2012. So it's not only FOP abuse but also simple copyright violation. Takabeg (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not same image!Samantha Bradshaw (talk) 19:02, 01 Feburary 2013 (UTC)

Delete --Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per copyright violation.--Dega180 (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ty Mainline.jpg

The uploader has indicated that Facebook is the source of the image, but has not stated who tok the picture. It's probably a copyright violation. Diannaa (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Baku.jpg

Copyvio. Including deleted images (File:Flame Towers 2.jpg & File:Martyrs Lane, Baku.jpg). Takabeg (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Movses Gorgisyan.jpg

Copyvio. This is a well known image of Movses Gorgisyan (See: [2], [3] etc..). There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Professor Senarath Paranavithana (1896-1972).jpg

per concern by MediaJet in my talk page User_talk:Morning_Sunshine#Please_Delete Morning ☼ (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them,they do not fit conditions to be PDs as per PD Sri Lanka Template MediaJet talk 05:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Atmos-777-.jpg

Нарушение авторских прав Wolkodlak (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cardom.jpg

Нарушение авторских прав Wolkodlak (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Image from defesaglobal.wordpress.com, doubtful claim of own work --moogsi^(blah) 13:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abir 462.jpg

Подозрение на нарушение авторских прав Wolkodlak (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sufa-3 azerbaycan.jpg

Нарушение авторских прав Wolkodlak (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Istiglal snayper 1.jpg

Нарушение авторских прав Wolkodlak (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:JNG-90-Bora-2.jpg

Подозрение на нарушение авторских прав Wolkodlak (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pm-38.jpeg

Подозрение на нарушение авторских прав Wolkodlak (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Armenia - Cascade (5034617482).jpg

Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia. All of those images were uploaded by a bot yesterday. Probably bots don't understand FOP. I think this is a serious problem.

Takabeg (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: now FOP in Armenia - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=96202242--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gopal Das Saxena 'Neeraj'.png

The metadata says "gnome-screenshot". Hence, it is probable that the file is a screenshot of some television programme. The lights in the background also suggest that. A newbie uploader. Lovy Singhal (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Screenshot from video --moogsi^(blah) 14:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Submissions-Anzeiger-Relaunch-2011.jpg

Too small, rights on magazine images unclear. Funfood ␌ 10:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Zij- en voorgevel nr. Y 3 - Benningbroek - 20479870 - RCE.jpg

There is a better alternative available at File:B voor- en linker zijgevel - Benningbroek - 20030619 - RCE.jpg. The nominated file is slightly cropped, but of lower quality. Lymantria (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:יום סרט של הכבאים המתנדבים.jpg

Copyright on the photo still exists in the USA Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken in 1933 by my Grandfather, the late Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz, in what was then the British Mandate for Palestine. It was scanned and uploaded to the internet in 2010 by Israel's National Library, under the permission of the copyright holders: http://dlib.nli.org.il/j2k/jpegNav.jsp?pid=2576&mimetype=image/jpeg&filename=%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%90%D7%99%D7%AA+%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D+%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%98%2C+%D7%AA%D7%9C+%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91.&identifier=69&locale=en_US&compression=70&img_size=best_fit&VIEWER_URL=/j2k/jpegNav.jsp?&DELIVERY_RULE_ID=69&convert_script=/exlibris/dtl/j3_1/digitool/home/system/bin/convert.sh&frameId=1

The photo is protected under US copyright laws (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf, page 5, "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date"), and therefore should be deleted from the Commons project. The reasons for that are as follows:

The photo was not published anywhere until 2010, when it was uploaded to Israel National Library site.
My grandfather - the creator of the photo - passed away in 1992.
The copyright on the photo was transferred to the photographer's sons, i.e. it still belongs to the photographer's family.
The family holds the copyright also on the scanned images done from the original negatives, following a written agreement with Israel National Library. This is also indicated next to every image in the Library's site.

Similar discussion regarding the status of my grandfather's photos can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beit_Alpha_1933.jpg

--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is not under USA cause it was taken under British mandate in palestine and now Israel. It was uploaded under Pd-Israel. I don't understand this request. Itzuvit (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Itzuvit, please read carefully the long discussion here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Beit_Alpha_1933.jpg, which led to the deletion of some other photos which were copied from my grandfather's collection in Israel National Library, including one from Palestine. The photo is protected under US copyright laws. The fact that it was taken in Palestine under the British Mandate has nothing to do with it, since the photo was first published in 2010. Commons policy is not to allow the uploading of images that still fall under the US copyright laws protection.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, How did you come to the conclusion that it was poblished only in 2010 and not before? and why do you want to remove the photo? Tnx Itzuvit (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Itzuvit, my name is Or, not Alex. As I wrote above, the photo was taken by my late grandfather, Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz. Most of his photo collection was hidden in a closet - negatives rolled in closed capsules - in my grandmother's apartment until discovered by me in 2003. This includes this photo. Until it was uploaded to the internet site of Israel National Library in 2010 it was not printed nor published. The photo is still under copyright, so please remove it from Commons. It was uploaded to Commons without our family's permission, therefore it should be deleted. Truly, it's very simple. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Or. :) ok. in this case it can't be a free photo you are right. I'm sorry for you'r time. I couldnt find a photo of yom seret, so I will upload it to hebrew wiki under "Fair use". I'm sorry that I didnt understand cause I would have been happy to have my late grandfather's photos uploaded. Again, sorry :) thank you, I will ask for deletion. Itzuvit. Itzuvit (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Not free yet. matanya • talk 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Quick Heal.PNG

Lacks proper license and request notes it is an incorrect logo of the company. Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Weird they use it at the top of their website, then. In any case an unused text logo, notability --moogsi^(blah) 15:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are "unused" and "notability" sufficient reasons to delete from Commons? It's clearly PD-ineligible so it's not a copyvio.--ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a criterion at Commons. I was referring to a reasonable need to illustrate this company for educational purposes. If there is no need then this file is out of scope because it's not instructive. If the only conceivable remaining use of a file is promotional then it should be deleted --moogsi^(blah) 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally 'unused' can only be applied if the image can be considered promotional or self-promotional (in the absence of another reason for inclusion). All IMO --moogsi^(blah) 18:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Erevan - Armenia (2906602733).jpg

Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia. Hotel Mariott building and the House of Trade Unions were designed by Mark Grigoryan who died in 1977 and Edward Safaryan (Republic Square, Armenia, Yerevan). Takabeg (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Takabeg (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Propylene carbonate.png

Low resolution, non-transparent background; better versions in Category:Propylene carbonate. Leyo 12:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Erevan - La place de la République 01.JPG

Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia. The Ministry House now MFA, ME and MTM) was designed by Samvel Safaryan who died on 9 January 1969 in Yerevan and Varazdat Arevshatyan. (Republic Square, Armenia, Yerevan).

Takabeg (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: now FOP in Armenia - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=96202242--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Byurakan.jpg

Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia. The Byurakan Observatory were designed by architect Samvel Safarian who who died on 9 January 1969 in Yerevan.

Takabeg (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been aware of FOP does not cover Armenia. Thanks for notifying me, and please remove the picture. Fabian RRRR (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wolfgang Jüttner.jpg

A small and blurry image; we now have much better ones in Category:Wolfgang Jüttner. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bastion Theresia.jpg

Looks like a screenshot from a public webcam, to which uploader doesn't seem to have copyrights. Hints point to http://www.rancaonline.ro/webcam/webcam_15G.html —Andrei S. _Talk 13:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Great diver megalodon.jpg

No permission. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Giganotosaurus model 2.jpg

No permission. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Carcharodontosaurus model.jpg

No permission. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Samara Vysotsky Fragment.jpg

The relief is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 16:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kulmino, le Panorama spectaculaire 6.jpg

EXIF shows copyright holder Francis Leroy, not our uploader or the author named. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kulmino, le Panorama spectaculaire 7.jpg

EXIF shows copyright holder Francis Leroy, not our uploader or the author named. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kulmino, le Panorama spectaculaire 5.jpg

EXIF shows copyright holder Francis Leroy, not our uploader or the author named. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DebianPPC Powerbook15.png

Contains unlicensed, non-free content (Elfen Lied wallpaper). Nervinv2 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: fanart or 3rd party made art of copyrighted content cannot be considered free-as-in-freedom even if the author releases it under a free license, unless the license of the original work permits derivative works to be created and licensed under such license. -Nervinv2 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Памятник Пятницкому.JPG

The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 16:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Памятник Платонову.JPG

The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kotenok s ulitsy Lizyukova Voronezh 2005.jpg

The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monument to Children - Park Orlyonok in Voronezh, 20090628.JPG

The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Andriy Lyubka.jpg

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:IvanBunin.JPG

The sculpture is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. Clarissy. 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Znak ČSSR.gif

No source, tiny, there's an SVG of this symbol. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monument to Lenin, Sevastopol.jpg

No FoP in Ukraine. The monument was erected in 1957. I uploaded the file. Yes, I am a fool :( Iluvatar (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:St George's church Sapun. Reverse.jpg

No FoP in Ukraine. The chapel was erected in 1995. I uploaded the file. Yes, I am a fool :( Iluvatar (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:St George's church Sapun.jpg

No FoP in Ukraine. The chapel was erected in 1995. I uploaded the file. Yes, I am a fool :( Iluvatar (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LicInstScreen.png

I created this image, but I deleted the wiki it was on quite some time ago. The file is not used on any other pages and is therefore useless. It provides no educational benefit of any kind and lacks source/copyright information. It should be erased. Levansula (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tragédia da boate Kiss, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul (10).jpg

Attributed Roberto Stuckert Filho/PR - not ABr photographer Wilson Dias Denniss (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ same comment made here (source and template). Sorry for mistake, Érico Wouters ^msg 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License only applies to ABr-made images, not for hosted images obtained from other sources. --Denniss (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attribution-PresidenciaBr is valid in this case. Others sources? Please see this (planalto.gov-official site of the presidency of Brazil). And I changed the license. Regards. Érico Wouters ^msg 00:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this. Sorry for my lack of attention. Érico Wouters ^msg 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tragédia da boate Kiss, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul (11).jpg

Attributed Roberto Stuckert Filho/PR - not ABr photographer Wilson Dias Denniss (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per this and this license, that is the correct license. Sorry for mistake, Érico Wouters ^msg 23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this. Sorry for my lack of attention. Érico Wouters ^msg 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict): Uploaded in 2013: per {{Attribution-PresidenciaBr}} + Template talk:Attribution-PresidenciaBr = http://www2.planalto.gov.br/termos-de-uso = No entanto, são proibidos de vender, revender ou explorar comercialmente todo o conteúdo deste site. =

. Gunnex (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:El Rif.jpg

Terrible quality, SVG at File:Flag of the Republic of the Rif.svg Fry1989 ^eh? 23:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tragédia da boate Kiss, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul (1).jpg

Attributed divulgação Deivid Dutra / A Razão - not an ABr photographer Denniss (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tragédia da boate Kiss, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul (3).jpg

Attributed divulgação Deivid Dutra / A Razão - not an ABr photographer Denniss (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tragédia da boate Kiss, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul (2).jpg

Attributed divulgação Deivid Dutra / A Razão - not an ABr photographer Denniss (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tragédia da boate Kiss, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul (12).jpg

Attributed to divulgação Deivid Dutra / A Razão - not an ABr photographer Denniss (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Arash Jahan.11.jpg

for a new version upload! Behronik (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: no license. --Ju Ta 19:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wappen Th neu.png

Copyright infringtion. Also german "Namensrecht" applies. 132.187.196.205 11:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader has no copyright for that coat of arms Alpertron (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pinocembrin.png

Stereochemistry missing. File:Pinocembrin.svg contains it. Leyo 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither one matches the IUPAC name in en:Pinocembrin (which is the same name used in fa.wp it.wp ja.wp as well). They all have two chiral designators, whereas the structure (both the nom'ed png and the proposed svg replacement) only have one at all (regardless of whether or not the chiral detail is included). Something is wrong somewhere that propagated to somewhere else, but I don't have time to track it down right now. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IUPAC name is wrong ("trihydroxy" gives it away). It's the IUPAC name for pinobanksin, not pinocembrin. FA/IT/JA probably copied it wholesale from EN. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that other compound was also first used at File:Pinocembrin.png before being overwritten with the current one being discussed. If File:Pinocembrin.svg is the correct structure and stereochemistry per some reliable source,

Delete the .png. DMacks (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. File:Pinocembrin.svg should be used instead. Ed (Edgar181) 16:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Solvent Red 164.png

File:Solvent Red 164.png (redrawn/corrected)
File:Solvent Red 26.png (redrawn/corrected)
File:Solvent Yellow 124 hydrolyzed.png (redrawn/corrected)
File:Orange G.png (unused/replaced by File:Orange G.svg)
File:Ponceau 2R.png (redrawn/corrected)
File:Ponceau 4R.png (unused/replaced by File:Ponceau 4R.svg)
File:Ponceau 6R.png (redrawn/corrected)
File:Orange B.png (incorrect/replaced by File:Acid Orange 137.png)
File:Oil Red O.png (unused/replaced by File:Oil Red O.svg)

Incorrect geometry of the azo groups. Leyo 12:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed:

File:Solvent Red 26.png
File:Solvent Red 164.png ~~(not one you listed).~~

More to come. Please let me know if these two are a good (their azo geometry is correct, but I don't know if there are other conventions regarding layout of these sorts of dyes). DMacks (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They both look fine, thanks. --Leyo 09:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re your edit-summary, I missed reading the title of the nom, and only looked at the bullet-list of items. oops:) DMacks (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed:

File:Solvent Yellow 124 hydrolyzed.png

DMacks (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponceau 4R.png may be replaced by File:Ponceau 4R.svg and deleted. File:Orange B.png and File:Oil Red O.png have already been replaced before the DR and may simply be deleted. --Leyo 18:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those three replaceable/replaced ones. DMacks (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orange B.png also appears to be incorrect (missing a carbonyl on the 5-membered ring, compared to file:Acid Orange 137.png and File:Orange-B-sodium-3D-balls.png. DMacks (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orange G.png is replaceable by File:Orange G.svg, so no need to fix the png. I've annotated the list at the top of the nom with the status of each. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...I think they're all triaged now, either fixed in situ or unused/replaced. DMacks (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected images are kept. Incorrect and unused images are deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 16:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Glavstroy logo rus.png

File:Glavstroy_logo_rus.png mistakenly downloaded incorrect image size Kutuza (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

плохое качество. хотим загрузить этот логотип высокого качества Kutuza (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: user downloaded wrong size PumpkinSky talk 01:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Model of Carcharodontosaurus.jpg

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Fullchicha12 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope, unused personal images.

Jespinos (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Yise paola (talk · contribs)

Out of scope, unused personal images.

Jespinos (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Martinjoyce

These images were all uploaded by User:Martinjoyce on the English Wiki. Most of the user's uploads have been deleted for copyvio, lack of licensing or non-use, and considering the image quality and resolution, they're most likely taken from other websites. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Vladimir Vysotsky

The sculptures and the reliefs are copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}.

Clarissy. 15:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Justinhu8 (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvios. INeverCry 01:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by NDLCP (talk · contribs)

Looks like collection of album covers and promo photos. No evidence of permission.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by S.Soundarapandian (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Bad quality. Out of focus.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Monument to Mitrophan of Voronezh

The sculptures are copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}.

Clarissy. 16:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Flavio novillo (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Monument to Bunin in Voronezh

The sculptures are copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}.

Clarissy. 16:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Pifoyde (talk · contribs)

Commons:Derivative works from game artwork.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Capvunam (talk · contribs)

Out of project scope, promo-only, see also Clínica del Viajero, UNAM and es:User:Capvunam.

Trijnstel_talk 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Érico Júnior Wouters (talk · contribs)

Unclear copyright status: Since end of 2012/start of 2013 Agência Brasil - normally licenced via (outdated) {{Agência Brasil}} - modified his licency policy (again) adding "(...) except as otherwise specified and content replicated from other sources". Usually, photos from photographers of Agência Brasil are tagged with [Name of photographer/Abr] and photos from other sources are tagged according to the source: recent example Abr versus.recent example photos from other sources. These questionable files - sourced via agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br - are tagged with "divulgação Deivid Dutra / A Razão". Deivid Dutra is a photographer of the Brazilian (local) journal "A Razão" so they are IMHO not a work of a photographer from Agência Brasil and are copyrighted by "A Razão".

Example: File:Tragédia da boate Kiss, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul (3).jpg (high wiki use)

As I could verify, this photo circulated at "A Razão"s site at "27/01/2013 às 10:23" versus gallery of Agência Brasil 27/01/2013, 11:29. Or: .jpg (arazao.com.br) = last modified: 27.01.2013, 13:06:46 versus .jpg (ebc.com.br) = last modified: 27.01.2013, 14:31:26. Summarizing: Permission from "A Razão" needed.

Gunnex (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per nom. Érico Wouters ^msg 23:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --188.67.42.68 10:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Azərbaycan qızları.jpg

Possible copyvio. This image was used in Mountain Jews Juhuro.com on 13 September 2011. There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salam. Əgər şəkillərin keyfiyyətini müqayisə etsəniz mənim şəkli sizin təqdim etdiyiniz linkdəki internet ünvanından götürmədiyim aydın olar. Əgər lazımdırsa daha yüksək keyfiyyətdəvə böyük həcmdə olan versiyasını yükləyə bilərəm bu şəklin. Şəkil dostum tərəfindən "Ləzginka" Rəqs Ansamblının Bakı şəhərində olan konserti zamanı çəkilib və müəllif hüquqları mənə aiddir. --Legends (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 18:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:03 marzo 2006 133.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Cecil Morning ☼ (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:03 marzo 2006 156.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Cecil Morning ☼ (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Zirkel Thuringia.jpg

PD-old, but german "Namensrecht" applies. Probably not Commons compatible. 132.187.196.205 11:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Londra 96 animals.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the picture is from here, copyright by Paolo Motta.

Considering that both Paolo Motta and Samoano are Italian and the map of photographed countries pretty much fits the contributions of Samoana and both users did mass uploads here right after registering I would say they are one and the same person. I have contacted him to confirm it. -- Cecil (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PRAGA 99 001.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Polin 014.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hong kong - central.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Baia di sydney vista da Manley 218951.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The Venetian canal Las Vegas 2005.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Grancanyon543.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:GznyImg 0288.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Waikiki.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vienna1 004.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Senza nome2.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lavenicecopia.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hondurasroatan5.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:HondurasroatanWe.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Islanda - vik y myrdal.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LibiaImmagine0289.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LibiaImmagine 097.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Immagine 341.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Patric Ullaeus 2007 5.jpg

I have to wonder whether this may be a copyvio. I fully admit I have no evidence for this, beyond this being the one and only upload of the user. Really I'd just like someone else to take a look at it. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes someone's PR or management will upload a promo shot to make sure a client's wikipedia article has a good image. I imagine the thought process is like 'of course we own the image', as licensing it under CC doesn't seem much different from all the other ways they could spread it around. They don't necessarily own the copyright, though - it could still lie with the photographer. They're usually upload and run, and to them there's no reason they should care how or whether they license it either. People generally upload copyrighted promo shots all the time, but they are usually not with seemingly original EXIF info and high res enough to make you wonder about the origin of the image --moogsi^(blah) 14:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

TimedText:¿Qué es Wikipedia

Duplicate of this other timed text. These captions won't be recognized by their corresponding video because of some weird problem with character "?"

I also made the duplicate version given above to correct name matching and it's working fine. Isacdaavid (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Autobahnnetz 1934.jpg

Der Urheber ist unbekannt. Deswegen ist es mutig zu sagen, er ist schon 70 Jahre tot. Ich fürchte das Bild muss gelöscht werden. Graf Foto (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe das Bild hier http://www.stmi.bayern.de/bauen/strassenbau/baukultur/08090/ ebenfalls gefunden und mal wegen Nutzungsrecht und möglichen Angaben zum Autor nett angefragt. Mit etwas Glück ist das STMI selbst Rechteinhaber. {{Heiko.20 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)| Heiko.20| Date}}[reply]

Und sollte sich kein Urheber finden, so tritt §66 UrhG in Kraft und es kann bleiben. Der Beschriftung nach ("1935 fertigzustellende Fahrbahndecken") stammt die Zeichnung tatsächlich aus dem Jahr 1934. Also solange behalten, bis die Urheberschaft geklärt ist. Falls überhaupt... - 188.195.172.215 19:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Das wär schön wenn die Karte doch bleiben kann. Haben wir für diesen Fall einen Lizenz-Baustein? Gruß vom Graf Foto (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laut Kennzeichnung stammt das Bild wohl von der Reproduktion des "Originals" des Verlages Volk und Reich - Mitteilungsblatt des Generalinspekteurs für das deutsche Straßenwesen, Dr. Fritz Todt. Für das Mitteilungsblatt selbst galt damals kein Urheberrecht. Eine Reproduktion kann kein Urheberrecht erzeugen. Pottz (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auch wenn es sich s.o. erledigt hat: Ich habe vom STMI Antwort bekommen. Der Internetauftritt soll demnächst überarbeitet werden, damit kann das eine oder andere Bild verschwinden. Es wurde die Bereitschaft erklärt, nach Umstellung das eine oder andere ggf. Bild hier nach Rücksprache nutzen zu können - sprich man wird sehen müssen, um welches Bild es geht. Hilft hier nicht direkt und jetzt sofort, aber der Vollständigkeit halber wollte ich die Antwort nicht unerwähnt lassen. (PS: Bin etwas verwirrt: Ich bin mir recht sicher, dass bei mir vor 3 Tagen nichts bei Autor und Source stand, sonst hätte ich nicht gesucht. Lt. History wurden die Annotationen am 7.12.12 gemacht ?) Heiko.20 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No clear evidence of permission FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wang Jin Bao.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Biligebatuer.jpg

PD-old-50 with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fu ding.jpg

PD-old-50 with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Li Yu Zhi.jpg

PD-old-50 with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lu Zhan Kui.jpg

PD-old-50 with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Daniel Barringer.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Anonymous-EU is ok.Sgsg (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Chen Chong Hui in Tsinghua University.jpg

PD-old-50 with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Chen Chong Hui.jpg

PD-old-50 with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:City seal of Tainan.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. unused, less problematic vector version exists Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with {{PD-shape}}. Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:City seal of Kaohsiung.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with {{PD-shape}}. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Zhu Dan Hua.jpg

PD-old-50 with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tian Wen Lie.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:William M Lang.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lin Jie.jpg

PD-old-50 with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-PD-China with unknown author is ok. Sgsg (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Carlo Airoldi.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps change the license to {{Anonymous-EU}} or {{PD-Italy}}. Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sergei Lyapunov.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bohuslav Martinů.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Peter Warlock.jpg

PD-old with unknown author is wrong, image might still be copyrighted. Adrian Bunk (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Richard Adolf Zsigmondy.jpg

Author: Walter Gircke (1885-1974) - the PD-old is clearly wrong and the image seems to be a copyvio Adrian Bunk (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. PD-old is a wrong template, it is possibly {{PD-Sweden-photo}} (which simply means the photo was first published in Sweden, whoever is the author). Could you please add your source for the Gircke's authorship? Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information on Gircke's authorship is not from me.
Then perhaps you'd better asked Martin before nominating. This way you won't have to defend his claims (I'm sure Martin had his reasons and sources, but we don't know them, hence my request above). Materialscientist (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is on whoever claims that an image is in the public domain. Adrian Bunk (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your PD-Sweden-photo claim is dubious, since it is unlikely that the photo was made in Sweden.
Even if you could show that it was made in Sweden and that the Gircke authorship claim was wrong, you would still have to prove that either the photographer is unknown (extremely unlikely in this case) or name the photographer to show that he died before 1944.

Adrian Bunk (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Negative, see Commons:Simple photographs. If the photo was first published in Sweden, the license applies. There is no criterion on author death. Materialscientist (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. So if you can prove that Swedish copyright law applies, then the photo is actually in the public domain. If you cannot prove that, then PD-Sweden-photo does also not apply and it might be a copyvio. Adrian Bunk (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[4] states "This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and first published in the book series Les Prix Nobel. It was later edited and republished in Nobel Lectures." Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1925, acknowledged here. So PD-Sweden-photo applies, and I do not have to find the author for this license (I'd like to, as an encyclopedian, but it is not trivial, and the author is missing in obvious sources like [5]; note also that some of his photos look similar, like File:Richard Adolf Zsigmondy LOC.jpg). All that said, I don't see any other claim of authored publication independent from that of the Nobel Foundation. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award This talks about the time the text was written. It does not tell where (or by whom) the photo was made.
So PD-Sweden-photo applies, and I do not have to find the author for this license But you have to prove that Swedish copyright law applies. If the photo was e.g. taken in Germany, then Swedish PD rules are completely irrelevant since Swedish copyright law could not void an existing protection under German copyright law.

Adrian Bunk (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel biographies in Les Prix Nobel always contain a portrait photo. For PD-Sweden, it is sufficient to have the photo first published in Sweden, no matter where it was taken (and so far there is no evidence of any authored independent publication elsewhere). PD-Sweden automatically grants US copyright per {{PD-1996}}, and this is sufficient for hosting a photo on Commons. You are correct that this does not guarantee the right to include this photo to any local wiki; say, German one has its own copyright rules. Materialscientist (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For PD-Sweden, it is sufficient to have the photo first published in Sweden, no matter where it was taken That is obviously wrong. If the photo was e.g. taken in Germany, then Swedish PD rules are completely irrelevant since Swedish copyright law could not void an existing protection under German copyright law, and commons policy would require the image to be in the public domain under German copyright law.
You are correct that this does not guarantee the right to include this photo to any local wiki; say, German one has its own copyright rules. Commons requires that all images are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. You are right that if you can prove that this specific photo was taken in Sweden, then German copyright law is irrelevant for this photo in commons. But you have to prove that, you cannot blindly assume that a country where a work was published is the source country of the work.

Adrian Bunk (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. Per links to the Swedish law in Commons:Simple photographs, the law applies to photos taken anywhere and first published in Sweden. Per COM:L, "The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." Materialscientist (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per links to the Swedish law in Commons:Simple photographs, the law applies to photos taken anywhere and first published in Sweden. Even in cases where this clause results in no protection under Swedish law, that does not imply that there is no protection in another country under the local law. It might be in the public domain in Sweden, but still be copyrighted in e.g. Germany and the US.
Additionally, you have so far failed to provide proof that the image was not published first in some country other than Sweden. The photo might have been taken in 1924 in Germany and published in a German newspaper at that time.
PD-Sweden automatically grants US copyright per {{PD-1996}} Wrong. Per {{PD-1996}} and COM:HIRTLE, if the photo was first published in 1925 and the copyright was registered and renewed properly in the US, it is copyrighted in the US until 2020.

Adrian Bunk (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Protectorate of Albion Flag.svg

Fictional flag; BadSVG; unused at time of deletion request; replaced by File:Protectorate of Albion Flag.png Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Diego Rubén Alvarado Villavisencio.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ADiego_Rub%C3%A9n_Alvarado_Villavisencio.jpg Diego-ruben2008 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:12drapeau du gouverneur generale colonial fr.jpg

that flag is invented by the uploader. There was no such flag for french general governors Antemister (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Drapeau indépendantiste jurassien.gif

the existence of that flag is really doubtful, as that movement seems to me not more than a private website Antemister (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flag of Madagascar during French Union.png

taken from an alternative history website und thus out of scope Antemister (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AOF French Union.png

taken from an alternative history website and so no educational porpose Antemister (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flag of French Equatorial Africa (1910–1958).png

taken from an alternative history website and so no educational porpose Antemister (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Signature Fernando R. Castilla.jpg

yo hice esta imagen y no le veo el caso a la imágen Ferny.rc (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Meads2.gif

This image is of a THAAD launcher, not MEADS. MDA once used this image as representative of MEADS. Now that MEADS hardware has been built and tested, this file should be deleted as a MEADS image. Gt6pilot (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the image because the reason for deletion is invalid. I have renamed the file and put in the correct category. --High Contrast (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Alphonse Mucha - Job Cigarettes 2.jpg

Photoshopped adaptation of a recent photograph combined with a public domain poster to create a derivative image for the birthday of the photographed person.
Links to the original source website: [6] and [7].
Multiple reasons for deletion:
1. Out of Project scope.
2. Copyright violation:
2a. There is no evidence that the photograph, from which the photoshopped face was extracted and derived, is free. The use of that photograph may have been allowed for a limited purpose but there is no evidence that it is free.
2b. There is no evidence that the adaptation work by the graphist, on the face and around it, is free. (From the source, it seems that the copyright on the winning derivative work is granted by the graphist to the sponsor, and the copyright on the non-winning derivative works, like this one, remain exclusively with their respective graphists.)
3. It is not specified if the photograph of the face was taken in a public place or if the photographed person consented to unrestricted publication and reuse.
Some more information at Commons:Bistro (in French).
--Asclepias (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For both reasons explained: probably out of scope and quite certainly copyvio. --Myrabella (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to #2 Definitely not a CR violation. Alphonse Mucha died 14 July 1939 (wikipedia) EU CR is life of the artist plus 70 years. Answer to #2a Websites sited are not the source of this file. Maybe wikicommons is their source? Who knows!! Answer to #3 This is a poster, who would consent? Not sure what your point is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpediem6655 (talk • contribs)

The original poster by Alfons Mucha is in public domain: File:Alphonse_Mucha_-_Job_Cigarettes_1.jpg. But there, File:Alphonse_Mucha_-_Job_Cigarettes_2.jpg is a recent artwork derivated from this original poster and it is probably not free, no evidence that it has been released under a free license. We know for sure that Wikicommons is not the source, because the file has been uploaded in 2012 by user:Carpediem6655. The file is dated from 2009 according to the EXIF data. That is more consistent with [8] and [9] (contest ended 5 years ago). --Myrabella (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ordo Templi Orientis.jpg

A request for deletion was put to me on IRC, but instead of deleting, I am bringing this to DR as the logo may very well be in the public domain now due to age. I don't have the time to do the necessary research on this, so hopefully one of our DR regulars can help to ascertain the status of this logo. russavia (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Centroamerica003.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason to doubt the source? What is the reason to suspect this is a copyright violation. As lacking "basic information", what is lacking that is required? I hope you are aware that: 1)As being from 1995, it would not have EXIF 2)Being uploaded to Commons in 2005, it predated the use of the standard template here. If there is some particular reason to doubt the uploader, please specify. Otherwise

Keep. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Moorea 2000 8 - 002.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per two comments above unless nominator can submit any reason to support their claims of supposed doubtful source and possible copyright violation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BoraS aereo 3 - 2 filtered.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bora motu.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Stadio San Siro - Giuseppe Meazza, Milano.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image even has in the version history a declaration of ownership. -- Cecil (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In italy there is no freedom of panorama and this building is projected by Ulisse Stacchini (died in 1947) and renovated in 1990.--Dega180 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like Dega. It's clear. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose - nonsense. FOP does not allow to delete files, you can mark files as FOP, the right of a some country is only in this country and not all over the world. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No FOP for buildings in Italy FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per [10]. Yann (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:San b 2.JPG

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:San b 1.JPG

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gli Spiazzi.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Spiazzi 3 1 2006 015.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Senza nome18 copia.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:03 marzo 2006 093.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:03 marzo 2006 097.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:03 marzo 2006 009 2.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:03 marzo 2006 158.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Spiazzi 11-2005 - 016 filtered.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Spiazzi 11-2005 - 071.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Boario fronte.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PROGETTO COMPRENSORIO OROBIE.JPG

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tornotrr.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lizzolacolerspiazzi.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ComoImmagine 067.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Porto 147.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ve-canalgrande.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ArezzoIMG 0377.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ImprunetaIMG 0318.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:FiIMG 0189.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Immagine 07e8.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tramo gabbiano 1.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lampedusa, Cala Grecale, 2003.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SCOPELLO copia.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ETNA.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Villasimius 5.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Olbia32IMG 0004.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:OLBIASIMG 0004.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:OlbiaIMG 0003.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2006, nearly 7 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:GalfaImmagine 020.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Duomo lontano.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Foto marzo 2005 083.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vernazza 15.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Senza nomeiohk3.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pagan 008.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Myanmar 2000 002.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mandalay mahamuny monastry.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Karen danu.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MaltaImmagine 444.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MaltaImmagine 556.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Karen danu.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MaltaImmagine 449.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Thay 19d97.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vietnam - song cau.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Granadanic33.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nic rivas.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Londra - chinatown - capodanno cinese.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Thay 1997 016.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Megisti 3.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio; file lacks basic information G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Stare mesto 3.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason to think the source is dubious? And what is the reason for thinking this is a potential copyright violation (it certainly looks like a snapshot rather than something that would be published professionally to me.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PRAGA 99 002.jpg

doubtful source, possible copyvio G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 23:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's an upload from 2005, nearly 8 years ago. Back then uploading was extremely basic and most users considered a CC-by licence declaring 'I, the copyright owner' as enough to express that an image is own source. Looking at the contributions of the uploader they are pretty much all the same style (colouring, style, ...) from the same source and they all were either typical vacation pictures or pictures from Italy (which I think is the home of the uploader). In his deleted contributions about a third of the images were deleted because of renaming (which back than also worked a lot different than nowadays). Of the rest they were either victims of the strict Italian FOP-law (which normal uploaders are seldomly aware of) or they were drawings of starting positions of soccer games which had a different description/licence indicating that he was transferring them from somewhere and thus they really lacked the source. Of all the deleted uploads I see exactly one real copyvio upload. So no I don't think this is a possible copyvio and I can't see any reason to doubt the source.

And thanks for creating an own deletion request for each of the many images of the uploader instead of putting them all together. I think over the time our script creators made work a little bit too easy and this case is how to misuse that. Especially since most of them had thanks to removing the border bots and other users as recipients of the notification. -- Cecil (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:French Mandate of Levant.png

flag taken from a alternative history website, the correct one is File:Flag of the French Mandate of Syria (1920).svg Antemister (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a "Special or fictional flag" it has a status on Commons which is neither valuable, nor delete-on-sight. However, as long as it remains on Commons, its status must be made crystal clear -- therefore this edit of yours was markedly unconstructive. AnonMoos (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, private artwork is out of scope here, this is a rule. Only two three guys here want to have such flags here - millions of user see that wrong flags because the WP users rely on the rule that no private artwork is stored here. You can upload such images on Flickr.--Antemister (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- 1) You fail to understand why Commons has many hundreds of "Special or fictional flags" images, which are mainly not deleted unless they're hoaxing or hatemongering (though I'm not arguing either "keep" or "delete" on this particular image, which is somewhat marginal). 2) Your edit http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFrench_Mandate_of_Levant.png&diff=89134345&oldid=80520956 was markedly unconstructive, and in fact I think I've seen more unconstructive than useful edits from you with respect to images on my watchlist. AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not for private artwork, that is a clear rule here (and such flags are always "hoaxing", we have discussed that topic more than one time) You and Fry1989 are the only ones who want that kind of images here.--Antemister (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice -- the whole process would be facilitated if you would tell us why this image is worse or more flagrant than the many hundreds of other "Special or fictional flag images" which are on Commons. In the meantime, if you can't tell when you're making things worse, the best advice would be just to leave them alone... AnonMoos (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No clear consensus to delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:French Mandate of Levant.png

Unused fictitious flag; out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 12:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kephir has made no arguments not also made by Antemister, which were insufficient above. AnonMoos (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which were perfectly sufficient in hundreds of other cases, and which you failed to refute. Keφr (keep talk here) 12:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- there are many hundreds of "Special and fictional" flags on Commons, and there's been a de facto practice for many years that such flags are not usually deleted just for being special or fictional, but rather only if there's some additional aggravating factor (such as being hoaxing or hatemongering). As long as this file is clearly labeled as fictional, it's not creating a problem.

By the way, some of your former nominations, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera Gay Reino Unido.png were rather useless and non-productive, so I hope you're adjusting your modus operandi accordingly... AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is creating a problem, because nobody pays attention to these labels, which means those files end up being added to articles and misleading people. Like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Pensacola.svg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of San Luis Potosi.png. Prevention is better than cure. Keφr (keep talk here) 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the names create default presumptions -- it would have been better if these files had been named "File:Hybrid of Pensacola flags display.svg" and "File:Proposed flag of San Luis Potosi.png" (as I pointed out on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Pensacola.svg). It does not automatically create a strong bias towards deletionism unless people are continuously inappropriately adding them to Wikipedia articles, in which case it enters the Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abbasid_flag.png hoaxing zone (as I already pointed out on your user talk page four months ago). AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they should not be used, why keep them at all? Commons is not a webhost for amateur vexilologers. Keφr (keep talk here) 12:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question should be: Has this fictional flag any educational use, i.e. is that flag used anywhere for more than personal purposes? In this case the only use I can find is at [11], i.e. it is a personal fabrication without any educational use.

Delete --Sebari (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as per User:Srittau. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paruyr Hayrikyan.jpg

Possible copyvio. This image is the derivative work of other image (see: [12]). There is no proof of {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image you refer to is of lower quality, so it is obviously not the source of copyvio. --PICAWN (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Takabeg, which site uses the image you linked to, please? I would like to see more context about your link. -Gryllida (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Monument to Vysotsky in Voronezh

The sculpture (File:VysotskyMonument after opening.JPG, File:Памятник Высоцкому в день открытия.JPG) is copyrighted. {{NoFoP-Russia}}. File:Памятник Высоцкому.jpg is not used and will not be used.

Clarissy. 16:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Памятник Высоцкому.jpg demonstrates history of opening Vysotsky monument in Voronezh. It may be usefull to illustrate some articles devoted to Voronezh culture. User talk:Raise-the-Sail
- Don't make me laugh, please. This image can't illustrate anything because it is unclear what it is. We see only two strange men and something in a plastic bag. That's why I'm not surprised that the file was uploaded 3,5 years ago, but has not yet been used though there is an article about the monument.
- You claim that this construction can be recognized as a monument to Vysotsky, isn't it? Great! In that case, read Commons:FOP#Russia, please. Clarissy. 02:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File:Памятник Высоцкому.jpg This file shows history of opening Vysotsky monument in Voronezh and history of reconstruction of Karla Marksa Street. That is not COM:SCOPE and not Commons:FOP#Russia, because monument is covered. --Insider (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have repeated the words of your friend as a mantra, but you haven't refuted my arguments. It's impossible to be a little bit pregnant. If this object can be recognised as a monument to Vysotskiy, it is copyrighted as a modern work of art. Similarly, a church under construction is copyrighted. According to paragraph 1 of article 1256 and paragraph 3 of article 1259 of Russian Civil Code copyright protection covers both published and unpublished three-dimensional works of art.
- P.S. Charming flash mob and manipulation: 1, 2, 3, 4 ;-) Clarissy. 21:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Сhurch under construction is copyrighted, but the church is covered with a tarpaulin is not protected by copyright. As a church or a monument behind the fence are not protected by copyright. P.S. WP:AGF. In my watchlist all files in the category:Voronezh Oblast. Of course I've been watching these nominations. File:Kotenok s ulitsy Lizyukova Voronezh 2005.jpg (ru:Файл:Kotenok s ulitsy Lizyukova Voronezh 2005.jpg) is not my authorship. I just moved it to Commons. --Insider (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: There is no FOP in Russia FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Monument to Vysotsky in Voronezh

Copyrighted contemporary object, no FoP for sculpture in Russia.

A.Savin 12:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]