Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/02/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
_2-deg-cw.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Morocco russavia (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: No FOP in Morocco russavia (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
the last few gift box images are very likely copied from the internet than the users own work. Penyulap ☏ 07:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted cover of a book. Rapsar (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Takabeg (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted cover of a book Julo (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I already uploaded this sign. Also New Zealand drives on the left, not the right. Fry1989 eh? 02:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: puppet accounts/out of scope/gone Herby talk thyme 18:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Porque soy el creador de esta imagen, no me gusta y no tengo idea como se borra. Santiagos98 (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Per OTRS ticket:2013020310002571 - photo is from a website [1] and is copyrighted Geoff Who, me? 14:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
![[1]](http://web.archive.org/web/20001009151242/http://montreal.cityvu.com/visions/vmtl2009.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete looking at en:User:Alexcaban I think this user uploaded some photos he didn't take himself. Multichill (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: serious copyright Violation. Speedy delete - Jarekt (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
obvious copyvio : http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/presidencia/presidente/ G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 17:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work --MB-one (Diskussion) 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC) MB-one (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 03:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio: http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://www.muniesquipulas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Escudo-Esquipulas.jpg#.UQ6sJx12SSo. The file has not any modification to the original, was copied as is. G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry. Yann (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. According to this website, the author of khojaly_ivleva1.jpg, khojaly_ivleva2.jpg is Viktoriya Ivleva, a Russian reporter. The uploader's name is User:Victoriaivleva. But I doubt the uploader's identity claim because he/she is quite newbie. I think the uploader have to apply to Commons:OTRS.
Takabeg (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The published photo was taken by me in Khojaly. There is no point for its deletion. Viktoria Ivleva - russian reporter.
- Unfortunately, the copyright holder is FotoSoyuz. See: Copyright ©2006-2011 FotoSoyuz. All rights reserved., Copyright ©2006-2011 FotoSoyuz. All rights reserved.. Takabeg (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
invalid file to be in WikiCommons, the file has licence Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 Generic. G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 18:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. The file on flickr is unfree (cc-by-nc-2.0, the flickr review is faked by the uploader. Martin H. (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio: http://www.chiquimulaonline.com/2012/09/el-departamento-de-chiquimula-ya-tiene-bandera/ .The user constantly commits copyright violations. G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 19:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry. Yann (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Ooops, copy/paste went wrong Jwh (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio: http://www.chiquimulaonline.com/2012/09/el-departamento-de-chiquimula-ya-tiene-bandera/ , http://www.chiquimulaonline.com/blog/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/bandera.jpg .The user constantly commits copyright violations. G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 19:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeveCry Morning ☼ (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
File:JPEG.33164737 Tomasmi1996 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann Morning ☼ (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but these buildings of Pier Luigi Nervi (died in 1979) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome). Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep In questo caso non sarei proprio d'accordo, in quanto il teatro è inglobato in un preesistente palazzo. Solo nella parte di destra vi è il teatro. La parte frontale è la funicolare centrale ed il cuore della foto (i giardini) rappresentano la piazzetta duca d'Aosta. Inoltre il progetto del teatro è condiviso con Gioacchino Luigi Mellucci, morto nel 42 e per il quale non vige il FOP. --o'Sistemonetell me 00:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- rientro - Si sarebbe dovuta rimuovere per FOP una foto della struttura interna...ma non della facciata esterna. --o'Sistemonetell me 00:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ho capito, hai ragione. Non sapevo che il teatro fosse inglobato in un'altra struttura. Ricorda che se vi sono più artisti di un'opera si deve considerare che il diritto di autore perdura fino a 70 dalla morte di ogni artista per cui dal punto di vista pratico se vi sono più autore si conteggia la durata del copyright a partire dalla morte dell'ultimo. This file had to keep. I've removed the notice in the file page. Thank you --Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep La spiegazione sarebbe da dare in inglese per l'admin che dovrà decidere. Ho paura che se non diamo la spiegazione in inglese l'admin di turno non capirà e penserà che anche le facciate esterne sono da cancellare. Lo può fare qualcuno più bravo di me?--Dega180 (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - nonsense. FOP does not allow to delete files, you can mark files as nFOP, the right of a some country is only in this country and not all over the world. Subtropical-man (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Derivative work of peanut butter package, no evidence of permission and too complicated for PD GrapedApe (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Image involving deleted images: File:Great mosque in Hewlêr (Erbil) Kurdistan.jpg, File:SunsetEIAirport.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
_Kurdistan.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality concern, tagged as non-free logo on English Wikipedia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Image involving deleted image: File:UnknownSoldierBaghdad.JPG. Takabeg (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This work is a product of the government of the Republic of the Philippines. Republic Act 8293 forbids the use of government works for commercial purposes. This image therefore does not qualify for free use under the terms adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is considered non-free on Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was used in Iraq Hurr on 15 November 2011. There is no proof of {{Self}}. Takabeg (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
_logo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Logo, so threshold of originality concern, exmpetions listed do not cover logos or symbols Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
Possible copyvio. This image was posted to skyscrapercity by makaay31 on 14 December 2011. There is no proof of {{Self}}. Takabeg (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a photograph of the Romanian magazine Dilema Veche, which is released under a free license. Under Romanian copyright law, there is no freedom of panorama, so a license from the creator is require for this, and the uploader doesn't have the ability to release this under a free license. Trinitresque (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image was posted to skyscrapercity.com by makaay31 on 14 December 2011. There is no proof of {{Self}}. Takabeg (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image (originally it was taken from panoramio, but I couldn't find precise adress) was posted to skyscrapercity.com on January 31st, 2012. There is no proof of {{Self}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was posted to skyscrapercity.com by makaay31 on January 21st, 2012. There is no proof of {{Self}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was posted to skyscrapercity by elusive on January 31st, 2012. There is no proof of {{Self}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Australia regions map.png. Is an attribution violation as original creator is not recognised. JamesA (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
A person of no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Dubious & unclear source, conflicting license claims, clearly incorrect/false "author" claim. -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Unremarkable person. Unused file, out of project scope. —Bill william comptonTalk 08:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Image including deleted images: File:Ganja city Ramada plaza.jpg, File:Ganja State Academy of Sciences.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Image involving deleted image: File:Building of Nakhchivan State Theatre.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work. Funfood ␌ 11:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions missing EXIF + per COM:PRP: all other uploads = copyvios Gunnex (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF + (considering uploaders talkpage) per COM:PRP. Gunnex (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
File:EL DESAFIO DE FOCALIZAR LAS COMUNICACIONES DE ODEPA EN SUS STAKEHOLDERS, EL CASO DE LOS PEQUEÑOS AGRICULTORES.pdf
[edit]Because I need user a new categorization, comunicación y agricultura, and there´re problem with them 186.105.82.140 11:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused test image, out of COM:PS. Funfood ␌ 11:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Grabbed spontaneous from internet to illustrate death of artist at 10.12.2011. The image already circulated before upload date here or here. Gunnex (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Personal picture of uploader; used as a promotional mean at English Wikipedia. —Bill william comptonTalk 13:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Badly poor quality, out of Commons scope. A.Savin 13:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I, user StAWM, have uploaded this picture some years ago. But I did not make this picture, nor do I have the rights to publish it. The picture was on the server of a company in Zelhem, The Netherlands. The rightfull owner of this picture does not give his authorisation for publishing it on commons.wikimedia. So I will ask for deletion of this image. StAWM (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strange story. Who is the rightful owner? Why don't they do the removal request themselves? The Banner (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The image is of typical web resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this image was taken from imfdb.org http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/AK-47#AKM
74.104.126.123 22:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The image is of typical web resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Several images appear in this collage. The source and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient. High Contrast (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this image and reviewing via tineye it looks to me as though larger copies of the image have existed on the internet. Sadly at least three seem to no longer exist via tineye. However grandpacificdrive.com.au was larger as was the one at southcoast.net.au and the last one looks very similar indeed. I am not suggesting this upload is a copyright violation however it would be good to have something more concrete from the uploader - preferably with EXIF info. Herby talk thyme 14:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The image quality here is not really of a very good standard and looks far more like a web shot than an original image. I am not suggesting it is a copyright violation however it would be good to have more info and preferably an image with EXIF info. Thanks Herby talk thyme 14:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Judging from the halftoning this looks like a scan from a book or magazine --moogsi (blah) 01:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
photo of a placard at US national monument. uploader simply assumes PD because it's outside. Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
It doesn´t look as a self work; low resolution, no EXIF data. It probably has been extracted from the Internet. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 15:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Official product photo, found on many shopping sites. Funfood ␌ 15:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Several copies of Google. Only upload of user. Small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Promo photo of group with questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Bellayet (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use. No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia. The architect of this building is Gevorg Tamanian who died in 1993. Takabeg (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
doubtful source, very possible copyvio. G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 18:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I took it myself. It's not used anywhere. The subject asked to delete it. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
doubtful source, very possible copyvio. The user constantly commits copyright violations. G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 19:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Doubtful source, very possible copyvio. The user commits constantly copyright violations. G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 19:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Doubtful source, very possible copyvio. The user constantly commits copyright violations. G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 19:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Doubtful source, very possible copyvio. The user constantly commits copyright violations. G. Coronades | Do you have a question? 19:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
No source or license given for this image at Wikitravel. We can't even know the uploader there created it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
copyvio of http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2104210176/nm2047719, dubious PD tag Holyoke, mass (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
not uploaded by the author; no evidence of permission by author or owner (OTRS etc). JFHJr (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This 'wanted' poster was compiled by the BKA, a police unit in Germany but the photographs were not created by the BKA. As a consequence, the photos are not in the public domain. Please check also the other uploads by this user 178.7.227.111 22:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Unused logo. Superceded in use by new logo on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skills_Funding_Agency_logo.png Cloudbound (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: This is the "ineligible for copyright"-version. Instead of the Wikipedia version we can keep this one in order to get it used on other Wikipedias. Transferring the copyrighted Wikipedia-version is not possible due to its complexity High Contrast (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Armenia, no freedom of panorama for these architectural works in Armenia. This building was designed by architect Gevorg Kochar who died in 1971.
- File:Yerevan alco factory.JPG
- File:Yerevan Brandy factory.jpg
- File:Yerevan Ararat Brandy Factory.JPG
Takabeg (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
_2-deg-cw.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2-deg-cw.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No need, apply rotation to the original file then delete. Fry1989 eh? 01:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
_2-deg-cw.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom McZusatz (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
_2-deg-cw.jpg){kind=link}
Plainly a "derivative work" under applicable copyright law, and therefore not a free image The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can circles within circles really be copyrighted? If you look at the history of the image you can plainly see that it's not a derivative work. Sinnamon (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it's a derivative work. All images depicting fictional characters not authorized by the copyright holder are derivative works, and the copyright follows the underlying work; it does not belong to the unauthorized creator (so long as it is created while the underlying work is under copyright). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's too simple for copyright, at least in the States. If it were made in Britain you'd probably be right. So Keep Sinnamon (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's too simple for copyright, at least in the States. If it were made in Britain you'd probably be right. So
- Of course it's a derivative work. All images depicting fictional characters not authorized by the copyright holder are derivative works, and the copyright follows the underlying work; it does not belong to the unauthorized creator (so long as it is created while the underlying work is under copyright). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep this doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Penyulap ☏ 12:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative of what???? Yes I'm aware of the movie, but this is a self-created SVG based on a pattern of circles. Fry1989 eh? 00:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Plenty The "eye" is not a fictional character, but just a part of it at best, an image of a Nikon Nikkor 8mm F8 camera lense. If I have made a clip with anthropomorphized matchbox with extra LEDs for the eyes, it does not mean that all matchboxes images are a "derivative work". Common objects images can't be copyrighted as fictional characters. In this case anyway, I think, resemblance is too small. 10:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I note that user Plenty has an interesting contribution history. Penyulap ☏ 12:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept: hardly derivaive, if considered so it does not meet ToO Denniss (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
This logo was tagged for speedy deletion but it looks simple enough for PD-Textlogo. I think it may be out of scope though, as the company doesn't seem to be notable. INeverCry 21:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I agreed its probably PD-Textlogo, but it is unused and seems out of scope. Pruneautalk 17:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - the only other edit by this user (deleted) was to add the words "Beautiful Madeline Duggan" to their userpage, which sounds like a fan comment INeverCry 00:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, agreeing with this. Myself and another Wikipedia admin have been looking into this ever since it was added to Madeline Duggan's page and we cannot find this image anywhere else. My own opinion is that it's possibly altered in some way, either way the "own work" claim is very doubtful --5 albert square (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Can't find any other trace of this image. But, the squareness and vignetting smells like instagram or similar. My guess is someone pointed their phone at a magazine --moogsi (blah) 07:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're right. It's on Duggan's instragram here. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Nominated due to the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alps - Regions (Eastern Alps).png: derived from a non-free map. The proposal is based on this comment, where a user who is a cartographer recognised File:Steiner Alpen.png as a copyvio. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Per the same rationale:
- File:Wetterstein.png
- File:Ostalpen2.png
- File:Ostalpen1.png
- File:Venedigergruppe I.png
- File:Venedigergruppe II.png
- File:Venedigergruppe III.png
- File:Allgaeuer Alpen.png
- File:Ammergauer Alpen.png
- File:Ankogelgruppe.png
- File:Dachsteingebirge.png
- File:Ennstaler Alpen.png
- File:Glocknergruppe.png
- File:Gurktaler Alpen.png
- File:Gutensteiner Alpen.png
- File:Hochschwab.png
- File:Karwendel.png
- File:Karnischer Hauptkamm.png
- File:Kreuzeckgruppe.png
- File:Kaisergebirge.png
- File:Kitzbueheler Alpen.png
- File:Lechtaler Alpen.png
- File:Oetztaler Alpen.png
- File:Randgebirge oestlich der Mur.png
- File:Salzkammergut Berge.png
- File:Schobergruppe.png
- File:Venedigergruppe.png
- File:Tennengebirge.png
- File:Wienerwald.png
--Eleassar (t/p) 22:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. And I didn't agree with the previous set of deletions either, but didn't get the chance to comment. The deletion proposal is based on the comments of one editor (not the proposer I hasten to add, who I believe is acting in good faith) who takes a tentative, but very narrow view that the only way to produce a non-copyright map is to survey it oneself. On that basis, we would probably need to delete all Wikimedia maps. At the very least we should hold off until we identify what the copyright rules say unless a map is lifted directly from a source with no changes. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your reasoning is unfortunately based on a false premise. I was actually the one who (in good faith) originally took the stance that the only way to produce a non-copyright map was to survey it oneself. In the opinion linked above, the cartographer then corrected me and stated that these images are non-free not because they were not surveyed by the author himself, but because it is evident that they were simply redrawn from [2]: "a redrawn map of http://www.bergalbum.de/uebersichtskarte_ostalpen.htm. It copies even the style of the original map. A personal contribution cannot be find." --Eleassar (t/p) 22:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Are we sure the Wiki maps were copied from www.bergalbum? Or did www.bergalbum copy them from Wiki? The Wiki author claims they are his. Do we need to establish that? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- The original map existed already in 2003.[3] These images were uploaded in 2006. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused offensive material. This will never be used for encyclopedia. WhiteWriter speaks 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As per Fae, and as per COM:SCOPE. Political/historical satire, even through an internet meme, is clearly within scope. Whether other projects utilise it, is up to them. We are merely a media repository. russavia (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Satire is one, but this is only offensive. I dont see how other projects will use it in the current form. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is offensive to one is not offensive to another. This is an example of the Polandball meme, and it is entirely up to editors to use which ever files they want to use across any project. Being offensive to an editor, or a few editors, is not reason to remove files from this project which are in scope. russavia (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Satire is one, but this is only offensive. I dont see how other projects will use it in the current form. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. in scope, someone may wish to assemble this lot into a book, can't say they'd call the book 'offensive political satire of the 21st century' though there may not be enough, and it may not be as offensive as other crap on commons in the category. Penyulap ☏ 13:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, in scope, form of parody and political satire in general topic of comedy to illustrate a position with regards to historical commentary. -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, per Red Primer for Children and Diplomats – Yeah, that is what we were told to do read in my fucking school. Call that an education. LOL -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: not demonstrated to be out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused offensive material. This will never be used for encyclopedia. WhiteWriter speaks 17:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As per Fae, and as per COM:SCOPE. Political/historical satire, even through an internet meme, is clearly within scope. Whether other projects utilise it, is up to them. We are merely a media repository. russavia (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Satire is one, but this is only offensive. I dont see how other projects will use it in the current form. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is offensive to one is not offensive to another. This is an example of the Polandball meme, and it is entirely up to editors to use which ever files they want to use across any project. Being offensive to an editor, or a few editors, is not reason to remove files from this project which are in scope. russavia (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Satire is one, but this is only offensive. I dont see how other projects will use it in the current form. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, in scope, form of parody and political satire in general topic of comedy to illustrate a position with regards to historical commentary. -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: not demonstrated as being out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused offensive material. This will never be used for encyclopedia. WhiteWriter speaks 17:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Comment Commons' scope includes political material and parody, so being offensive is not a reason, of itself, to delete. Commons also exists for far more that Encyclopedia entries or Wikimedia projects, if this image is of educational value, such as illustrating a particular meme, or even the nature of how an issue is active parodied, then this image should be kept. However, someone should put forward such a rationale if they want the image kept if there is a view that the only reason to have it here is to offend Commons users. --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As per Fae, and as per COM:SCOPE. Political/historical satire, even through an internet meme, is clearly within scope. Whether other projects utilise it, is up to them. We are merely a media repository. russavia (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Satire is one, but this is only offensive. I dont see how other projects will use it in the current form. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is offensive to one is not offensive to another. This is an example of the Polandball meme, and it is entirely up to editors to use which ever files they want to use across any project. Being offensive to an editor, or a few editors, is not reason to remove files from this project which are in scope. russavia (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Satire is one, but this is only offensive. I dont see how other projects will use it in the current form. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Minor clarification. I believe that if material is put on Commons that only appears to exist to offend Commons contributors and is highly unlikely to be used anywhere else (such as validly within a Commons wikiproject), then there can be a valid deletion argument that it fails to meet our project scope. If the material is challenged as disruptive to the project only, then I believe it is reasonable that a case demonstrating why it is in-scope must be made to avoid deletion. In the case of Polandballs, the meme is seen by many as disruptive, and a cogent generic case for educational purpose could be usefully made, in particular so there is a reasonable level of community consensus to be able to assess to what extent new material generated and published for Commons illustrating the meme, without a verifiable history elsewhere, still fulfils Scope, and when it does not. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- So why, again, do we need literally hundreds of images like this one to illustrate one tiny, insignificant meme? I've always scratched my head on the popularity of Polandball on Commons, and I'm still wondering whether it's really just one person trying to spread/promote it everywhere. I've never seen it being used anywhere else but on commons. --Conti|✉ 12:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, that is my point! It looks to me also that uploading it here serves only as a way to use free marketing. This is hardly within commons scope to the very limits. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- So why, again, do we need literally hundreds of images like this one to illustrate one tiny, insignificant meme? I've always scratched my head on the popularity of Polandball on Commons, and I'm still wondering whether it's really just one person trying to spread/promote it everywhere. I've never seen it being used anywhere else but on commons. --Conti|✉ 12:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. in scope, someone may wish to assemble this lot into a book, can't say they'd call the book 'offensive political satire of the 21st century' though there may not be enough, and it may not be as offensive as other crap on commons in the category. Penyulap ☏ 13:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, in scope, form of parody and political satire in general topic of comedy to illustrate a position with regards to historical commentary. -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"""Being offended is not a valid reason for deletion. Wiki is not censored - PumpkinSky talk""" --Muffi (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: not demonstrated as being out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 02:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Although the text provided seems to be somehow compatible with our licencing policies, every page in the ppmadrid.es site points to this license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/es/deed.es Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Creative Commons 2.5; So, I cannot see the problem ¿?- talk to me/habla conmigo 14:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Creative Commons 2.5 does not exist. According to the wording of the Legal Notice (in Spanish, rough translation provided: Access and use of the site is free and free of charge and is under the Creative Commons 2.5 license, which authorizes the use, modification and distribution of the contents, as well as the generation of derivative works, provided the source is mentioned. [..] The user must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.), it resembles very much to a CC-BY-SA license. However, when providing a link to the involved Creative Commons license, in every page, just befor the Legal Notice, another link is provided. Such a link reads "Creative Commons License" and links to a not compatible license (BY-NC-ND). Therefore, the licensing information provided by the source site is confusing and I don't know which licensing information actually applies. That's the whole rationale behind this deletion request. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The same problem can be seen in the rest of images obtained from ppmadrid.es:
- To the admin closing the request, please remove (or keep) said images. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 2.5 Spain noting non-commercial and non-derivative => CV — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Pbm as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted logo INeverCry 22:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think I should add more info about this. File is from this page. It was uploaded for article about this company in Polish Wikipedia. Article was removed as it was enirely advertisement and there is no notability of company. On this page there is copyright note that forbids using its content. Paweł 'pbm' Szubert (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission, not released — billinghurst sDrewth 02:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hoax. The Source is missing. The painting reproduced on the first page comes from 1819. Tomasz Raburski (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- As this file is of challenged fidelity, I have marked it with the template, and moved the note to the talk page. There is insufficient grounds to remove the file. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: dubious fidelity, however, that does not make it out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 02:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This page has been marked as of dubious fidelity since 2013, after it was tagged by @Billinghurst: following a brief deletion nomination. Since then, it has not been proven to be an authentic page of Wiennerisches Diarium (later named Wiener Zeitung). Given that the source does not provide the image nor the text and that the painting included (in color!) dates from 1818, I am left to conclude that it is an artistic mock-up of the newspaper as imagined to have appeared in 1776. I do not see the educational value in an ahistorical and inaccurate (it doesn't even seem to follow the formatting of the paper in the late 1770s, per pages from Politico and the Center for Research Libraries) creation of a page of the newspaper, especially when we already have multiple authentic images, including within 25 years of 1776. This image is out of scope, as there isn't true use for a faked and ahistorical image, especially given that it is in hoax territory as it obfuscates that it is a mock-up. The image, really, has the opposite of education value in that it is misleading. TenTonParasol (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Looking into this more, this image present itself as the front page of No. 69 of 1776, published 28 August. The Austrian National Library archive of the front page of that issue shows that this is not accurate to the front page. Looking into it more, the text is from page 3 of that issue. So, this image is a collage of the masthead from page one annexed to the top of coverage about the American Revolution from page three, which is the middle of the issue's coverage which starts on page two, with the addition of a painting created decades later. The educational value of an image that chops up and reconstructs a historical document to create an ahistorical presentation of it remains nil, and I remain in the belief that it is thus out of scope. TenTonParasol (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In use in multiple projects. It is a collage of public domain historic elements. It should not be presented as if it were an original 18th century document. Image description edited accordingly; same should be done with any usage. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cassa di Risparmio di Venezia
[edit]Sorry, but these buildings of Pier Luigi Nervi (died in 1979) are too recent and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stadio Friuli
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Giuliano Parmegiani and Lorenzo Giacomuzzi Moore is too recent (1971 - 2012) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Stadio Friuli Italia-SudAfrica Rugby.jpg
- File:Stadio Friuli Udine 20090923.jpg
- File:Stadio Friuli2.jpg
- File:StadioFriuliPanoramica.png
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete--Dega180 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no FOP i n Italy Julo (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content.
- File:Atomic radii.jpg
- File:Atomic radius.jpg
- File:Atomic radii new.jpg
- File:Atomic Radii of all elements.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
- File:Nonozao.jpg
- File:Saobernardocaico.jpg
- File:Serrasaobernardocaico.jpg
- File:Serrasaobernardo.jpg
- File:Caicorain.jpg
- File:Vista parcial caicó.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrei.dinca.1998 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rayhan Yulanda (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
- File:Go difa.jpg
- File:Difa ryansyah 2.jpg
- File:Difa 1.jpg
- File:Patton PB Patton Banget (323).jpg
- File:Patton PB Patton Banget (263).jpg
- File:Patton PB Patton Banget (167).jpg
- File:Patton PB Patton Banget (164).jpg
- File:Patton PB Patton Banget (128).jpg
- File:Patton PB Patton Banget (125).jpg
- File:Patton PB Patton Banget (11).jpg
- File:Patton otlivio latupeirissa.jpg
- File:Difa ryansyahhh.jpg
- File:Muhammad difa.jpg
- File:Difaaaaaa.jpg
- File:5b9jcc.jpg
- File:Ic difamili.jpg
- File:M difa.jpg
- File:Difa ryansyah.jpg
- File:Difa.jpg
- File:Ic difa.jpeg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Razmian2213 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Aj.JPG
- File:Gdlanglands-1.jpg
- File:GP-321.jpg
- File:Teachers-Old CCR.jpg
- File:CDTS-ccr.jpg
- File:CCR TEachers.jpg
- File:Admion Block.jpg
- File:Admin Block-ccr.jpg
- File:Group photo-fmc.jpg
- File:Mash-1.jpg
- File:GP-FMC.jpg
- File:FMC.jpg
- File:Fmc-2.jpg
- File:FMC-1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alda forever (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Noemiuriartesanchez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Modern text documents with questionable notability.
- File:AGRICULTURA.pdf
- File:VACUOSIDAD DE FORMACION ESPECIFICA.pdf
- File:COMENTARIO SOBRE EL ARTÍCULO "Cooperación de Brasil".pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like collection of promo/fan photos, not own work.
- File:Basta-live-murate.jpg
- File:Stinta-basta.jpg
- File:Save-basta.jpg
- File:Rob-basta.jpg
- File:Juma-basta.jpg
- File:Basta-default.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohitkumargoel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement of company with questionable notability.
- File:Outsource SEO brainshakers.png
- File:SEO REseller Company brainshakers interactive.png
- File:Goel mohit deoband.jpg
- File:Mohit Goel SEO.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohitkumargoel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement of company with questionable notability.
- File:ThanksGiving Day - BrainShakers SEO.jpg
- File:Blog-post link guidelines - brainshakers interactive.png
- File:Link Building Guidelines 2014 brainshakers interactive.jpg
- File:Brainshakers Interactive.png
- File:REPUTATION MANAGEMENT.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence the images had been licensed under free licenses.
- File:Yoko Ono - 1969.jpg
- File:Pattie Boyd feet 60.jpg
- File:John Lennon & Yoko Ono - Give Peace A Chance.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Uploader has given no proof that the given license is correct.
- File:Dale a los pies una oportunidad (Encamada por La Paz de John y Yoko).jpg
- File:Todos Juntos (Encamada por La Paz de John y yoko).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There are two images of the same personality. I would like to remove the file uploaded from my another account Piku662. 49.136.122.207 05:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The file depicts the same painting as File:清_郎世宁绘《清高宗乾隆帝朝服像》.jpg, which has better colour balance and resolution. The file nominated for deletion also has its right side cropped. I therefore nominate this file for deletion based on its redundancy and worse quality compared to its superior duplicate. Wylve (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
A recreation/copy of a copyrighted/trademarked logo such as this one cannot be a free image The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Probably should be deleted. Does someone want to move it to deWP first under fair use? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 13:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Photograph of a painting with no mention of date of painting or death date of painter. Since the person depicted died in 1926, it is very probable that the painting was made later and the painter could be still alive. Razimantv (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- What you say does not make sense. If the person died in 1926, it is quite probable that the painting was made before that date. Yann (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know, most of the paintings of nuns used to be made after their death only. I could be wrong, but suppose that the painting was made even during her lifetime. This could well mean that the painting was made around 1920. More than possible then, that the painter was alive for three more decades and hence the copyright of the painting hasn't yet expired in India. -- Razimantv (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
എണ്ണഛായ ചിത്രമാണോ, ഫ്ലക്സടിച്ച് വെച്ചതാണോയെന്നറിയില്ല. എന്തായാലും പുതിയതാണ്. ഈയടുത്തകാലത്താണ് മ്യൂസിയത്തിൽ കണ്ടത്. പെയിന്റിംഗാണെങ്ങിൽ, പെയിന്റർ ജീവിച്ചിരിക്കാനാണ് സാധ്യത. അതിനാൽതന്നെ, വിക്കിയുടെ നിയമാവലിയനുസരിച്ച് തീരുമാനിക്ക്...
കാക്കര (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is someone able to translate the previous comment? At this stage unless there is a statement saying that an OTRS is on the way or pending then this should be delete copyright violation as no permission. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Also File:Vista aerea da ovest del Meublé Grifone di Sirmione.jpg. User Wimmo on IRC told me about this image. The images indicate the position of a hotel in an aerial photograph, and are apparently taken from [4] and [5] (Facebook post dated June 2012). They are low-res and have no EXIF data. The uploader is named after the hotel, suggesting an official affiliation with the hotel, but we normally require evidence by OTRS for pre-existing copyrighted images on the web (there is no proof the uploader account is actually an authorized agent of the copyright holder). Additionally, I am skeptical that Meuble Grifone took or owns the rights to these aerial photos, particularly the high altitude one - more likely they just modified existing ones - but I can't find evidence of this. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now I canceled the edit of it.voy ( diff ) --Wim b (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've received e-mail from Meublé Grifone Sirmione in which they claim to have paid a contractor for these photos. However the scant documents I could dig up seem to suggest that Italy has pro-employee work-for-hire laws, and as such their contract must explicitly specify that it transfers copyright to the employer, or otherwise the employee retains it. I'm following up with them about this. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Juventus Stadium
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Hernando Suarez, Eloy Suarez, Stefano Suarez (Studio Shesa), Gino Zavanella (Studio GAU) is too recent (2011) and Italy has no FOP exemption.
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Curva nord.jpg
- File:Img1330a.jpg
- File:Ingresso sud.jpg
File:Inside Juventus Stadium (2).jpgFile:Inside Juventus Stadium (3).jpg- File:Juventus arena.jpg
- File:Juventus Museum.JPG
File:Juventus Stadium (Est).jpg- File:Juventus Stadium (ingresso C).jpg
- File:Juventus Stadium (parking).jpg
File:Juventus Stadium (tribuna est).jpg- File:Juventus Stadium 2.jpg
File:Juventus Stadium inauguration.jpg- File:Juventus stadium, Torino.jpg
- File:Juventus Stadium.jpg
File:Juventus stadium.jpg- File:Juventus Stadium1.jpg
- File:Juventus stadium2.jpg
- File:Pennone Juventus Stadium.JPG
- File:Piliers.jpg
- File:Tirante juve stadium.jpg
- File:Veduta centrale Juventus Stadium.JPG
- File:Veduta interna Juventus Stadium.JPG
- File:Viale pedonale, Juve Shop.jpg
- File:Vista della sud.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The majority of the interior shots show nothing protectable and are a clear Keep, most exterior shots have to go though. --Denniss (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep these photos
- because the interior of the stadium contains no original element. Delete all other photos.--Dega180 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- because the interior of the stadium contains no original element.
- Keep - nonsense. FOP does not allow to delete files, you can mark files as nFOP, the right of a some country is only in this country and not all over the world. Subtropical-man (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Images need to be free in the US and their country of origin, even if made by a US citizen they are made in Italy thus their non-existing FoP regulation makes them non-legal. Sad but that's it. --Denniss (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you a lot! --Raoli ✉ (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Denniss, first: your opinion is just your opinion, please show paragraph of US law about this (relates USA law and pictures from other countries). Second: you wrote: "made by a US citizen they are made in Italy". US citizen? Wikimedia is multi-international project, not made by only a US citizens. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's not my opinion, that's official policy. Copyright regulations do not stop on country borders. --Denniss (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- You wrong. Law (also about copyright) works is only in this country, in which it was written. For example, Eiffel Tower is modern artworks and also French law prohibits the publication of this BUT Wikimedia is not France, servers of Wikimedia not lies in France and Wikimedia not need comply with French law. This is international project, not French, Italian etc. In Spain, Poland, Australia and in 100 other countries, French law not applicable. To pictures of France, Italy etc you can add a note about FOP, and do not delete files. Maybe tomorrow, North Korea prohibit the publication information about Asia, and Wikimedia remove data about Asia because these data are breaking the law of North Korea? Nonsense. The law works is only in this country, in which it was written. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are completely wrong Eiffel tower is in the public domain in France, its architect is dead for more than 70 years. You may want to check COM:L to read about our licensing policies:
- Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.
- Which is the reason we enforce COM:FOP. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are completely wrong Eiffel tower is in the public domain in France, its architect is dead for more than 70 years. You may want to check COM:L to read about our licensing policies:
- You wrong. Law (also about copyright) works is only in this country, in which it was written. For example, Eiffel Tower is modern artworks and also French law prohibits the publication of this BUT Wikimedia is not France, servers of Wikimedia not lies in France and Wikimedia not need comply with French law. This is international project, not French, Italian etc. In Spain, Poland, Australia and in 100 other countries, French law not applicable. To pictures of France, Italy etc you can add a note about FOP, and do not delete files. Maybe tomorrow, North Korea prohibit the publication information about Asia, and Wikimedia remove data about Asia because these data are breaking the law of North Korea? Nonsense. The law works is only in this country, in which it was written. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's not my opinion, that's official policy. Copyright regulations do not stop on country borders. --Denniss (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Images need to be free in the US and their country of origin, even if made by a US citizen they are made in Italy thus their non-existing FoP regulation makes them non-legal. Sad but that's it. --Denniss (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted some, kept rest FASTILY (TALK) 22:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Juventus Stadium
[edit]There is no FOP in Italy.
- File:5 Maggio 2013.jpg
- File:Inside Juventus Stadium (2).jpg
- File:Inside Juventus Stadium (3).jpg
- File:Inside Juventus Stadium.jpg
- File:Juventus Stadium (Est).jpg
- File:Juventus Stadium (tribuna est).jpg
- File:Juventus Stadium inauguration.jpg
- File:Juventus stadium.jpg
LGA talkedits 11:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The main copyrighted element here is stadium roof. I think, that after cropping roof away the photos are generally OK. Taivo (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have cropped the files, closing admin can you please delete old versions. LGA talkedits 07:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept, now the files are cropped and safe to use. Taivo (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
je n'ai pas donné l'autorisation. elle ne fait pas partie des images officielles 78.215.86.37 09:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Bonjour, Nous pouvons envisager la suppression de ce cliché qui pour l'instant est le seul, dont la licence est claire, que nous ayons pour illustrer votre article sur Wikipédia. Il existe bien sûr cet autre cliché. Toutefois, il est estampillé d'un joli © Sophie Daret ce qui laisse planer le doute quand à sa pérennité sur Wikimedia Commons à moins que Sophie Daret et Sarahakoun2 soient la même personne auquel cas nous pourrons accéder à votre demande de suppression de fichier. Cordialement. --Thesupermat (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 22:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
