Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/05/23

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
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.

Archive
Archive
Archive May 23rd, 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.

Emblem of the 2018 Winter Olympics - Copyrighted 195.169.141.54 12:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I have recreated the file in en.wikipedia. Hektor (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most olympic logos are very complicated and therefore copyrighted. This one is not. The olympic rings we already have on Commons, the rest is extremely simple rectangles and an asterisk.  Keep Fry1989 eh? 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you have a something, a statement by the PyeongChang organizing committee for instance, to support your assertion that this logo is not copyrighted ? I notice for instance that on the PyeongChang website the logo has a ™ attached to it but that it has conveniently been edited from the image posted on Commons Hektor (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to have something from an organisation specifically stating they're logo or symbol is PD. We have tonnes of logos on here without such a written notice saying they're PD. PD-textlogo, PD-shape and PD-simple all apply. Fry1989 eh? 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't. This logo has no ground to be in Commons. And we are dealing with an organization, the IOC, which is very protective of intellectual and artistic property. Hektor (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they absolutely do. Are you aware that the olympic rings are already here? So take them out of this image. Do you really believe what is left, that 4 rectangles forming a very nondescript shape and an asterisk, are enough to form a copyright? I'm sorry to burst your bubble but this is a case of "sad day for them". They chose a logo that is too simple, it is PD. Fry1989 eh? 22:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to burst YOUR bubble but the IOC had the Sochi 2014 logo removed from Commons and it was far less complicated than this one. Hektor (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doealing with copyright on Commons for 3 years, I know what is simple and not. Sochi's was removed because it uses a distinct font that was specifically created for the logo. This one does not. This is PD simple, PD shape and PD textlogo. Sad day for them, you can't protect something that is too simple for copyright in the first place. Fry1989 eh? 23:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: As Fry1989 mentioned, {{Pd-textlogo}} applies here, because the simple forms in the logo does not meet the treshold of originillaty. Amitie 10g (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Too simple logo, even I am able to do that. Taivo (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Recreated after deletion for an Administrator. Copyrighted Olympic logo. And remember that you are individually responsible for what you upload. Hektor (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was immediately restored because it is too simple for copyright. Denniss may not understand that, but Fastily did. You also don't understand copyright. This is too simple. PD-textlogo, PD-Shape and PD-ineligible ALL apply.
Anybody new to this DR should be aware that while the image was initially deleted by Denniss, a proper reasoning was not provided and the image was immediately restored through unDR. Fry1989 eh? 01:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Further to what Fry mentioned. 99.229.41.79 01:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close: the logo is in the public domain. I actually undeleted per a formal undeletion request. The logo is a textbook instance of failure to pass the threshold of originality because it consists of geometric shapes which are too simple in nature to qualify for copyright protection. -FASTILY 07:15, 22 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.

The image is an incorrect reproduction of the original logo. The ™ sign next to 2018 has been omitted. Hektor (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Speedily, this is an abuse of the DR process and a trivial reason to nominate an image. Fry1989 eh? 17:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close yet again, same reason as above. -FASTILY 18:29, 23 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.

An svg version is keep without deletion request 2605:BA00:4138:155:FD66:6234:D89A:C194 21:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


speedy kept (non-admin closure) Not a reason for deletion, see COM:DUPE and COM:INUSE. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2023 (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.

The title cosists of a mistake: "TeKHnical" must be "TeCHnical". The files are moved to Category:Russian Technical Society Building. The category consists of the images of the building, therefore this word was added to the category title. The phrase "Odessa branch" was deleted to make the title shorted. It doesnot change the meaning of the title. Yuriy Kvach (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attantion, that the files were moved back to this category with mistake in the title by the author of the category, User:HOBOPOCC, after the template was added! It was done without any comments. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: moved to category:Odessa branch of Russian Technical Society due to spelling error. Anatoliy (talk) 12:23, 24 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: What new could be added to Category:Human penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 16:59, 24 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.

derechos de autos Edacevedo (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

derechos de autor Edacevedo (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uploader request short after upload. Martin H. (talk) 01:05, 24 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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 17:02, 24 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.

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 17:00, 24 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.

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 17:00, 24 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.

Datei zu groß, Hochladen dauert zu lang Zyklothym (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Reason of deleting request not valid Julo (talk) 16:58, 24 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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 17:02, 24 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.

no notability Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Julo (talk) 16:56, 24 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.

Empty category. The files are moved to Category:Saint Demetrius of Rostov Church in Odessa. Yuriy Kvach (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Empty category deleted by User:Fastily. Rosenzweig τ 21:09, 25 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.

Empty category. The files are moved to Category:Saint Demetrius of Rostov Church in Odessa Yuriy Kvach (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Empty category deleted by User:Fastily. Rosenzweig τ 21:10, 25 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.

professional photograph from www.cathybrown.co.uk El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 17:18, 25 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.

Obvious copyvio of commercial album covers Guinnog (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted as fair use by User:Fastily. Rosenzweig τ 21:09, 25 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.

It is my own creation and was used exclusively for en:WP:VIDTUT, serving no other purpose. It is an orphan and my own creation. Jackson Peebles (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 30 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.

Page deleted on french wikipedia [1]. Personal file, unused picture of an amateur photograph SamuelFreli (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 30 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.

The source/license and author information of 1 image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. File:Morumbi.jpg (uploaded in 2008 by Lukaaz (talk · contribs) (Lucas Chiconi) is copyvio (cropped: original author removed) via http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=251315&page=15 (2007, by "gutooo") = http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/gutooo/do%20cenu/docenu021.jpg (last modified: 2007) Gunnex (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 30 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.

The source/license and author information of one image (File:Avenida Paulista Aérea.jpg) used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Gunnex (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 30 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.

No freedom of panorama for statues in the United States. Lymantria (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete This statue looks too modern to be installed before 1978 so I'm afraid that Commons cannot keep it per US FOP laws. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I usually just tag these as speedy copyvio and let the deleting admin decide. If the uploaders truly want to keep them then they can prove the statue age and request undeletion. This may keep the DR backlog clear.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 30 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.

No freedom of panorama for statues in the United States. Lymantria (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 30 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.

Empty category. The files are moved to Category:Hotel Bristol (Odessa), it is correct name of the building Yuriy Kvach (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 30 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.

Empty category Yuriy Kvach (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 30 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.

Empty. The files are moved to Category:Preobrazhenska st., 84 in Odessa Yuriy Kvach (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 30 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.

Apparently user Jaerom Darkwind have uploaded several copyvios on en.wikipedia: [2]. While Image:OakeshottX-XIIa.gif and Image:OakeshottXIII-XVa.gif has been deleted, I guess this has been forgotton. There i no evidence that Peter Johnsson, the real author of this drawing, released this unter a free licence Avron (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 30 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.

Empty. The files are moved to Category:Preobrazhens'ka st., 100 in Odessa --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 30 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.

Empty. The files are moved to Category:Saint Pantaleon Church and Monastery in Odessa Yuriy Kvach (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The files are moved because you created similar category, but I don't see the need of creation new category. First at all this is monastery building with church on the last floor and you name your catyegory incorrect. The main purpose - monastery, secondary - church and I don't see reason to point that monastery have a chorch with similar name. TI think that all files must be returned to "Odessa St. Panthaleimon Monastery" category Investigatio (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have created, because the correct name of the saint is Pantaleon, not Panthaleimon. Also, I have put the word church to the category title, because the main church of the monastery is St. Pantaleon Church. Actually, we can see the fasade of this church in all the images. But, if you disagree with me, we can make new category intitled Saint Pantaleon Monastery in Odessa (without "church"). What is better, what do you thunk? In any case the name of the saint MUST be corrected. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 30 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.

Nothing proves that Radio Courtoisie has had the authorization to say this picture is free. According to the given link (in French) they just had the authorization to publish it on their website. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 30 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.

Not PD-US as it is likely the work of Florida government, and not the US government. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 30 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.

No Freedom of Panorama in the US for artwork (statues, sculptures) permanently installed after 1977. The artist must be deceased at least 70 years for the image to be copyright free. This is modern art. Leoboudv (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 30 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.

This image from 1927 in Germany was uploaded with a PD-old-license, but "author=unknown" and "source=unknown". When I first tagged it with "no-source", the uploader simply removed the tag. When I re-tagged it, an IP added the current source-link to a German newspaper, where the images is labelled as "(C) DAM". So far, I don't see any effort by the uploader to search for the author. Therefore, the claim "unknown author" isn't sufficiently substantiated and requires more research, before being acceptable. Also, for truely anonymous works the year of first publication is relevant as it determines the duration of protection for works that have been published within 70 years after its production. This information is also missing. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 30 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.

Uploaded by DAGOKANI (talk · contribs) in 12.2010: Permission from "Marcio Barbosa" neeeded, as file was previously published via http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1212295 (09.2010) = http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p151/marckinhos/mossorcity.jpg (last modified: 09.2010, seems to be the photobucket-account of "Marcio Barboso"). Affected montage: File:Montagem Mossoró (RN).jpg (if file will be deleted, pls don´t delete the montage. I´ll open a separate DR for the montage, considering that montage builder Marcos Elias de Oliveira Júnior (talk · contribs) is quite active in Commons and may edit his montage...) Gunnex (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Forget it, more copyvio founded in this montage. DR openend via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montagem Mossoró (RN).jpg. Gunnex (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 30 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.

The uploader's claims of "PD-old" and "author unknown" are doubtful. After the true source of the image file has been found (not provided by uploader), it is evident that a copyright note and a signature, which are well visible (upper left and lower right corner) in the copy at source are missing in the uploaded version. It's therefore unlikely that the image is PD. However, if the Institut für Stadtgeschichte of Frankfurt is the rights holder, they might provide a permission if requested. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 30 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.

The source/license and author information of some images (File:Praça do Teatro Municipal Dix-Huit.jpg = copyvio, File:Mossorcity-1.jpg needs permission via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mossorcity-1.jpg) used in this collage are missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Gunnex (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 00:10, 30 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.

A cropped version of the same photo was published here on March 31, i.e. more than 1 month before the upload to Commons. Thereby, likely not own work of uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 30 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.

text-only contribution Taivo (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 30 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:NATIONAL LIBRARY OF BELARUS - MINSK.jpg

Text-only contribution, restored soon after deleting Taivo (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: --JuTa 20:04, 9 June 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.

Unclear copyright status: Uploaded in 01.2007 by Lucasdaniel1992 but previously circulating via http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10796548&postcount=32 (2006, by "Dan Silva") = http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/dansilva_2006/HotelThermas-Entrada.jpg (lower res, identical exif). "Dan Silva" commented: "Essas fotos estão no site do Hotel." = These photos are at the site of hotel = archive from 2006 (© Copyright 2004 - Todos os Direitos Reservados). Note, that there is "Click to enlarge"-advice. Resuming: Permission from http://www.hotelthermas.com.br needed. Gunnex (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 30 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.

I suspect, that Pikachu is copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 30 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.

The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 30 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.

Out of scope: Sorry but this band seems not to be notable for any Wikimedia project. The file is not used High Contrast (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 30 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.

A poor quality drawing that's basically an illustration of text. Not more educationally valuable than the same information in text form. Vesihiisi (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one way of illustrating gold. Maxronnersjo (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Look et:Kuld, and you see the same data much better way. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 30 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.

Unused strange file Taivo (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 30 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.

не значимо XVodolazx (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agree, unused photo about non-notable person. Taivo (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 30 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.

Every file with description "ha ha ha ha meme" is a copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 30 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.

Bad photo. We have a lot of better photos about doves. The uploader's other contribution is also presented for deletion. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 30 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.

FOP does not apply in Norway. Will be PD in Norway in January 2014 Themightyquill (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Restored in 2014 (artist died in 1943). --Avenue (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2014 (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.

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 30 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.

letter is dated 2009, PD-70 claim is erronous, no evidence uploader is copyright owner GermanJoe (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This letter is from a public documentation. It provides from a legal case in Paris.--Laetita bir (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No proof is given, that the 2009 document is public domain. Taivo (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 30 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.

letter is dated 2005, PD-70 claim is erronous, no evidence uploader is copyright owner GermanJoe (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this letter provides from a public legal case in Paris. --Laetita bir (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No proof is given, that the 2005 letter is in public domain. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 30 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.

This is not entirely the uploader's own work: Where does the elevation data come from? El Grafo (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 30 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.

A copyright violation? According to http://lenta.ru/news/2013/04/22/simptoms/ the author is Mikhail Klimentyev / RIA Novosti. Vesihiisi (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 30 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 30 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.

poor quality, svg available Antemister (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 30 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.

Clearly a scan from a textbook, so copyright violation. Wizardman 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 30 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.

Clear textbook scan, copyright violation Wizardman 16:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 30 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.

Clear textbook scan, copyright violation. Wizardman 16:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 30 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.

Clear textbook scan, copyright violation. Wizardman 16:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete So small technical drawings are worthless. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 30 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.

Clear textbook scan, copyright violation. Wizardman 16:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 30 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.

Too dark. Not in use. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 30 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.

Very probably not free. No proof of authorization. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 30 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.

Unused file, appears to be here for promotional purposes, possible copyright violation. Unclear what educational use it might have. Pete F (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 30 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.

The requirement to obtain permission from the author before copying the image contradicts the stated license and Commons' licensing requirements. LX (talk, contribs) 19:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

No evidence uploader owns the licenses to the original images, and per his contribution pattern it's doubtful DMacks (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

wrong format Lourdeslanote (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

Scan from file the uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder of. Savhñ 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

Unclear copyright status: Uploaded by J0nils0n.oliveira (talk · contribs) in 2007, tagged with {{Attribution}} and sourced with Prefecture of Brazilian municipality Itaituba (author = "Roselito Soares da Silva" = ex-mayor). At +/- upload date the main site of itaituba.pa.gov.br (archive of official site --> I am presuming, that this was the original file source) was licensed with Copyright © Didata Informática Todos os direitos reservados". The archive of this site is not complete but what I was able to get, was never licensed under a free license. Resuming: Permission needed, per COM:PRP no evidence of {{Attribution}}. Affected montage: File:Cidade de Itaituba.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

Unused personal image. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

Unused personal photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

The non-free HTC content (primarily the wallpaper) in this image are not de minimis (the icons might be, but the wallpaper is more prominent than anything), making this a derivative work. I've already found some compliant photos to serve as replacements ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 30 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.

As the uploaded, I wish to have this file deleted so it can be replaced with the intended copy (which will be named differently). Ziggzagzac (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 30 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.

Nice effort, but impossible to identify subject based on this sketch. Ytoyoda (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

Modern architecture; per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 07:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 30 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.

No evidence that this would be a free work. The date on the plaque is 1994, and the poem seems modern. Eleassar (t/p) 10:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 30 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.

please delete this one as this one was test, i am going to upload a new file with some changes. -Saqib Qayyum (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Requested by author just after upload PierreSelim (talk) 06:25, 30 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.

Couple of issues:

  1. No freedom of panorama in Italy. Photographs of copyrighted three-dimensional works of art cannot be freely licensed.
  2. It's likely that the photograph comes from krazart.com, where the artist's other sculptures can be found shot in similar style and shown at similar quality: [3], [4] and [5].
  3. File is most likely from here: http://www.sculturacarrara.it/opere_marmo_metafore.htm Ytoyoda (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ezarateesteban 13:32, 17 February 2012 (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.

Likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 30 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in irrelevant content in Wiktionary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   00:59, 11 November 2021 (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.

It is a duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pere_el_Gran_al_Coll_de_Panissars.jpg Galazan (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK!, just be sure to update Wikipedia articles if is linked somewhere :)--Kippelboy (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Safe to delete. Image has been correctly placed in appropriate wikipedia articles. Sarah (talk) 01:01, 31 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.

They appear to be promotional photos ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 30 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.

There is no FOP in Russia.

russavia (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 30 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.

Files of User:Davidgutierrezalvarez

[edit]

User Davidgutierrezalvarez has uploaded these images:

They are all unused. Two first are personal photos and two last are drawings about a Karel J Robot with no permission from author, who is not uploader. Taivo (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 30 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.

Files of User:Lacantera5

[edit]

User Lacantera5 has uploaded 3 images about Alejandro Mejía. English wikipedia mentions 5 or 6 different Alejandro Mejías, but none of them has own article. At least some of them can be notable. Anyway, one of Lacantera's pictures is presented for deletion and here are the others:

They are both unused photos and there is no article, where to use them. Taivo (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Neither "not used" nor "there are no articels" are valid reasons for deletions. Nevertheless, the images are blatant copyright violations: [6] and [7]. --High Contrast (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 30 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.

Files of User:Latincelebrities

[edit]

User Latincelebrities has uploaded a lot of photos about non-celebrities:

They are all unused personal photos. His other contribution is also presented for deletion. Taivo (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 30 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.

Files of User:Zonalogistica

[edit]

User Zonalogistica has made a lot of self-promo:

They are all unused files with no encyclopedical value. Taivo (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 30 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.

Files uploaded by Annaivanova2402 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No metadata, likely copyvio's.

Savhñ 12:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 30 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.

Files uploaded by Cavid Sumqayıtlı (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some files look like scanned photos.--Ray Garraty (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 30 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.

Files uploaded by Claudio and irene (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:51, 23 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 Claudio and irene (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gunnex (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 23:48, 5 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.

Files uploaded by Genailton Lopes Leandro (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 30 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.

Files uploaded by Lightmentor (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 30 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.

Files uploaded by Lightmentor (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Internet images copied from a blog. No evidence these have been released into the Public Domain, as the uploader is claiming.

Senator2029 03:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 21 June 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 Olympus Ares (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Different and inconsistent image resolutions, no or invaldi EXIF information and all in small sizes: unlikely that these files are the uploader's own work

High Contrast (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I add here two more photos from same uploader, both about Vietnamese navy as previous files:

Taivo (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 30 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.

Files uploaded by Sun1985 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Fun as these may be, I rather suspect they're copyvios.

-mattbuck (Talk) 07:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 30 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.

Files uploaded by TeeJaai (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Image of non-notable person, out of scope

Morning (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:35, 5 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.

Files uploaded by TeeJaai (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 30 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.

Files uploaded by Vivek.a.rai (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope.

Savhñ 13:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all. So small photos are worthless. Taivo (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 30 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.

Th files are moved to two newly created categories: Category:Sabaneev most street and Category:Sabaneev Bridge Yuriy Kvach (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the official name of street and bridge in Ukrainian?--Anatoliy (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Official name of the street is вул. Сабанєєв міст (in Ukr.), улица Сабанеев мост (in Russian), therefore I have added the name Sabaneev most street (transliteration from the Russian spelling). The bridge called Sabaneev. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check the street an bridge names here: w:uk:Вікіпедія:Вікі любить пам'ятки/Одеса/Частина 9 --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found the street: [8] Where is the bridge?--Anatoliy (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photo of a monument in Ukraine, number: 51-101-1155
, 46° 29′ 16.43″ N, 30° 44′ 14.11″ E --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I see, the bridge is part of street, so we should add photos of bridge to the street's category (or make subcategory). I look to other streets categories of Odessa, they are named mostly after Ukrainian street names, that's why I suggest to name category of street Category:Sabaneiv Mist Street (after the mname Сабанеїв мсіт which used in official documents). And bridge category may be named Category:Sabaneev Bridge (after Russian General Ivan F. Sabaneev).--Anatoliy (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the Category:Sabaneev Bridge as subcategory of Category:Sabaneev most street. The bridge needs a category, because it is Cultiral heritage object, and related to the :Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Odessa. The street category cannot be included to the heritage category. According to the spelling of the street category, I did not pay attantion to the language, used the title of Category:Sabaneev most street and bridge as the background for the both new categories. Yes, the translitaration from the Ukrainian name should be better, but the official name is Сабанєєв міст, so, the new category must be intitled Category:Sabaneev Mist Street, for example! This is not a correct translitaration, but "Sabaryeyev" is very complicated in English. I think we can make it simple. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the street and the bridge are originated from the name of Sabaneev! So, we must to save "Sabaneev" (Russian family name) in the titles of both categories. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We know issues when name of streets are misspelled with names of persons (Дегтярівська in Kiev after Дегтерєв, Дежнєва in Kiev after Дежньов) so the name Сабанеїв Міст is not wonder for me. Bridge may not have official name, but street should have it. But we do not know what name is official, I could not find city government decision, I found only different court decision with different(!) names: Сабанеїв міст, Сабанєєв міст, Сабанеев міст, Google and Yandex Maps use name "Сабанеїв Міст", when OSM uses Сабанєєв міст. Accoding Ukrainian language correct nme will be Міст Сабанєєва.Anatoliy (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the official source [9]. You are right, it might be Sabaneiv Mist (or Sabaneyiv?), from Сабанеїв Міст. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: files moved to Category:Sabaneiv Mist Street and Category:Sabaneev Bridge Anatoliy (talk) 16:40, 31 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.

This file was initially tagged by Ain92 as duplicate (dupe) and the most recent rationale was: The Second World War 1939 - 1945- Germany- Personalities BU6711.jpg. Not an exact duplicate, as this form is somewhat zoomed, however, the alternate file is of significantly better quality scan  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 31 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.

Probably wrong person in the photo. See he:קובץ:יעקב אדרי.jpg and so on. Sealle (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I do not understand any Hebrew, but if the person in this photo is notable, then the photo should be renamed, not deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So please identify this person first. Sealle (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody knows, who he is, then obviously  Delete. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 31 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.

Copy of File:ESC 2014 Map.svg, but rasterized. No need for this copy. Creator is not capable of creating vectors, that's why he always creates rasterized duplicates of Eurovision Song Contest files (moderators will be able to see that he has done this a few times before). MichielDMN (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: This is quite different from File:ESC 2014 Map.svg (Spain, Ireland, etc.) Please refrain from comments about other editors capabilities. We all have faults. I could, after all, make a comment about your poor eyesight. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted see talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 1 June 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.

Modern sculpture (from 1990), per COM:FOP#Slovenia not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 09:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it meets threshold of originality. Nearly all cemetery sculptures look like this one. --Miha (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would not if there was only a cross. However, a cross with flowers and a feather (symbolic for Balantič, who was a poet) is not a simple geometrical shape. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 31 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.

The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with a different one now. Unreal7 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Aside from the question of copyright in the image, the image is a DW of the copyrighted stage set. We cannot keep it without permission from the creator of the set. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 31 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.

Modern architecture; per COM:FOP#Slovenia not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The building is (almost) the only object of interest. In my opinion, hardly DM. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Object of interest is subjective. --Sporti (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very unlikely DM: "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." --Eleassar (t/p) 11:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Please, Sporti, get real -- without the copyrighted building it is just wooded hillside. No one would use this image if they wanted a photo of just a wooded hillside. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 31 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.

Copyrighted relief; per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 11:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the relief is not a simple geometrical shape and as such is copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Tree branch with leaves makes this not a trivial plaque. Taivo (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 31 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.

The source/license and author information of one image (File:Avenida Paulista Aérea.jpg) used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. Gunnex (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my talk page:User talk:Rodrigo.Argenton you can use before propouse to deletation. And I fixed the image. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The file is now repaired and can be kept, but the old version of it can be deleted. Taivo (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Hid the previous version. Removed the GFDL license -- you cannot put a GFDL license on images that have only CC-BY-SA .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 31 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.

Duplicate file «Нивки» західна частина 20.JPG Сарапулов (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Similar, but not duplicate .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 31 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.

Duрlicate file Околиці "Острова Звірів" 04.jpg Сарапулов (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Similar but not a duplicate .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 31 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.

Unlikely to be "own work", might be old enough to be in the Public domain though. El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No description, only Category:Kuwait. Not useful, evenif it is PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 31 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.

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

All material on commons must be licensed under a free license, text contributions too. GeorgHH 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long you as license it GFDL, you may add any additional licenses to it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:54, 7 February 2007 (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.

There are multiple problems with this template, see the talk page. It is currently unused. –⁠moogsi (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted Note that I deliberately left the talk page as a record. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 31 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.

tekrari hastesh Aroosa (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 19:43, 31 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.

Incorrecte Fathisarah (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 19:43, 31 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.

Originally from Flickr. Uploaded to lb-wiki where they did/do not have a formal Flickr review. Uploader (trusted admin on en-wiki - retired) added "This file is licensed under Creative Commons; Attribution 2.0 License". Keep or kill? MGA73 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 19:43, 31 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.

Modern church from the 1990s. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 10:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep the curch was originally built in the 14th century and renovated several times. It was demolished in the 19th century and rebuilt in 1990s.[10] Copyrigthed are paintings inside the church, not the building itself. The fresco on the wall is not problematic per COM:DM --Miha (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have built a new church (sezidali novo cerkev). There is no evidence that it would be a reproduction of the original one and it also doesn't look like one. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - not many arhitectual elements are visible except common or trivial. --Sporti (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember any church just like this one. Its external appearance is clearly not trivial. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete A woodshed can be trivial building. Church is never trivial building. Taivo (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not trivial, but it's traditional. And similar as with the hayracks, this means we cannot just assume it is copyrighted. --Miha (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly.  I withdraw my nomination. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: FASTILY 19:43, 31 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.

I received direct communication from Hewlett Foundation claiming copyright of this image. I do not wish to have my account associated with it. ChristineBushMV (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While there is interpretation of the threshold of originality that theoretically marks these as PD, they are typically still protected by trademarks. This file should be removed from Commons and a copy uploaded to Wikipedia (if merited by an existing article) as Fair Use. Any organization would get antsy if they saw their logo somewhere tagged as "not eligible for copyright" and "public domain". It's not worth the potential trouble, in my opinion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per {{PD-Textlogo}}. INeverCry 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of any user asserting in the file's meta data that the image is in public domain. User:INeverCry is correct that the image is not copyrightable per {{PD-Textlogo}}, but what is being deleted is User:ChristineBushMV's assertion that they uploaded an image in the public domain. Files have to be connected to users and this user has the right to say that they no longer wish to claim that the image is public domain. I feel like another user who wishes to make this claim could if they desired. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 19:43, 31 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.

all characters that appear in this category are copyrighted in 2008. No FOP in source country.

Nightingale (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree Being an official mascot does nothing with copyright status. Unless this content is released under free license, these photos infringe copyright holder's rights(either Nagoyo city or the designer)--Nightingale (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The photo shows a "public relations in Nagoya" is the official mascot of Nagoya City, violate the rights of Nagoya? Sanity?(あー、英文めんどくせぇな・・・)--KAMUI (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete unless we have evidence to show it is not copyrightable or released under a free license. --whym (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment KAMUIさんへ:コモンズは多言語のプロジェクトですので、存続の根拠を説明するのに日本語が必要でしたら日本語で書かれてもけっこうです。日本語で参考になる文献などもありましたらぜひご紹介ください。ただ、これまでの議論を拝見したかぎりでは、この画像(の被写体)はフリーである根拠がとぼしいと私は思います。着ぐるみは一般に著作物でないとはいえず [11]、今回の場合に著作権保護の対象外である理由も示されておらず、フリーライセンスで公開されているという証拠も示されていません。Commons:OTRS/jaの説明に従って、著作権者(自治体でしたらその代表者)の公式メールアドレスから許諾宣言文を permissions-commons@wikimedia.org 宛に送っていただけるようにはからってくださるといいのではないでしょうか。それが受け取られれば、ライセンスが確認されたものとして(そのときまでに削除されていた場合は復帰のうえ)存続になるはずです。 --whym (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(コメント)現在、そこまでの手間を掛ける情熱も暇もありません。正直、今回の件が気力を損ねたのも事実です。他の自治体公式マスコット画像への削除依頼ではこのレベルで写り込んでるものも対象になってたりするので、頭がデカくて目立つはち丸には対処のしようがない(試しに私がアップロードした名古屋城での公式活動中の画像などにモザイク掛けてみたら酷い有様になりました)。そもそもこの手のマスコットはその外見に特徴があるので、それをボカしては意味が無い・・・と言うか単なる嫌がらせにしかならないンですけどね。--KAMUI (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(コメント)今日、テレビの名古屋城本丸御殿公開のニュースで子供たちの後ろにはち丸のマゲと頭の一部が見えてる映像を見てふと思ったんですが、この手のマスコットの場合にどこまで写ってたら削除なんでしょうね?その辺の基準をはっきりして欲しいですわ。--KAMUI (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(コメント)日本の著作権法は2012年の改正で、新たに「写り込み」に関する規定が設けられました(詳しくは文化庁のページ参照)。他国でも同様の規定があリ、背景に小さく写り込んでしまったような場合などは削除対象にならないのではないかと思います。コモンズではCommons:De minimisに説明があり、{{De minimis}}テンプレートも用意されています。--Mugu-shisai (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete photos of copyrighted works. 名古屋市のページの「マスコットキャラクターイラストの使用について」にもありますが、名古屋市は、イラストを使用する際は原則として申込みが必要としており、商用利用については市の承認を必須としています。自由利用できないコンテンツの二次的著作物に当たると思われます。--Mugu-shisai (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Derivatives of non-free content FASTILY 19:44, 31 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.

Files uploaded by Lelenia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The very different qualities of the image and lack of metadata make me think these are copyvios.

-mattbuck (Talk) 16:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 19:43, 31 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.

No evidence that this wayside shrine, which looks modern, would be a free work; per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 10:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - is has 2 numbers on top left and right: 1910 (built) and 2011 (renovated). --Sporti (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the title "Lavričeva kapelica v novi preobleki" (Lavrič Chapel in New Clothes) and "V novi podobi je kapelica zasijala sredi oktobra" (In a new design, the chapel shined in the middle of October) is enough to constitute significant doubt that it is simply a reproduction of the original one.[12] --Eleassar (t/p) 10:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Unclear copyright status, and no FOP in Slovenia FASTILY 23:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Copyrighted olympic logo. In addition it is not well copied which shows that doing such a logo is not that easy. Hektor (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT copyrighted, it is too simple. You failed to prove it was copyrighted in this DR, and while an admin did delete and close that one, they did so without a proper reasoning and it was immediately restored in an unDR request. This is not copyrighted. PD-textlogo, PD-Shape and PD-ineligible ALL apply. Fry1989 eh? 01:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Further to what Fry mentioned.

Speedy close: see my reasoning at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pyeongchang 2018 Olympic official emblem.gif -FASTILY 07:16, 22 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.

The image is an incorrect reproduction of the original logo. The ™ sign next to 2018 has been omitted. Hektor (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep You may upload an additional version of the logo with the ™ sign. --Leyo 12:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Speedily, this is an abuse of the DR process and a trivial reason to nominate an image. Fry1989 eh? 17:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close yet again, same reason as above. -FASTILY 18:29, 23 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.

No evidence this is below the threshold of originality in South Korea. Many nations (even most) would consider this above the threshold. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep for the third bloody time. This is so stupidly simple, it's obviously ineligible. Three PD licenses all apply, and more complicated logos from South Korea currently exist on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 03:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How long must we tell you that w:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and w:WP:JUSTAPOLICY are not a valid argument before you get it? I'm going with "until a few seconds before the heat death of the universe." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to tell me ANYTHING, thank you very much, you yourself should know those are Wikipedia policies, not Commons policies. "Other crap" does matter here, because it helps build an understanding of what the bar is. You're also the person who holds/held a backlog of images you "question", but don't actually bother to nominate, probably because you know you'll loose on about 70% of them. I'll only say this one last time, an asterisk and four rectangles in a non-descript shape is not complicated enough for copyright in almost any country. Your sudden interest in the image after it's been kept a collective total of 5 times is really irrelevant. It's PD-simple and that's a fact. Fry1989 eh? 04:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic rings are PD and I can't see how an asterisk can change all that. There is the text, I think we can let them claim copyright over the 'y', the 'g' and maybe the capital 'C' but not 2018 !!!! I want to live that long. I don't want them keeping 2018 to themselves.

But seriously folks, Fry !! be nice !!! I'll put you in charge of my project when it's running, stop people from deleting things, although actually it won't have any DR's as such so that's moot. I'll put your care to good use somewhere though. It is frustrating for the same file to be nommed so often, but Magog the Ogre just started here as an admin, I voted for him, he's not an a**** like so many people are, so cut some slack. Magog the Ogre, we pretty much have no real choice but to make comparisons on things where there are no very very similar court cases to quote. There are a lot of files with court cases, and they'd make interesting reading I imagine (ZzZZZzzz) but that's pretty much everyday, roughly comparing things to work out what is ok. Now Australia, don't talk to me about Australia, they buck the trend with world class idiocy with the flag of the natives there, it's far too simple and even google got caught out by that sillyness. Pah, on planet Earth, it's good to take a look over what has court cases first, then what has been scrutinised before, and then just plain guessing really. Don't mind Fry, he's a good guy, people just get up his nose on purpose so much that he has like, hmm, a way about him, but he is a good guy.

Browsing through the Category:PD ineligible will give everyone a good idea about what is cool and what is not, don't see it so much as me pointing to one single item and saying othercrap exists, look at it as a category so large that it gives a general idea of what the project, the scrutineers, and the public all figure is ok. Ignore the most complex 10% and get an idea of the other 90% as the 'rule of thumb'. Penyulap 05:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep It seems unlikely to me that this meets the Commons:Threshold of originality for copyright. A few points about this:
    • Some countries do have very a low threshold of originality: see the Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos discussion from last year. I wouldn't expect other countries to have a threshold as low as the British without some reason; and in the case of this file, there is no reason to be South Korea law would derive from British law.
    • The Olympic rings are not under copyright. They are not only very simple, but have been published and in use since at least 1912, and presumably simultaneously published in the United States with several other countries.
    • Decisions to keep files on Commons are based only on copyright, not trademark or special legal status (which might apply to Olympic symbols). User:Hektor may have been confused about this. A work can be a fully protected trademark, or have special legal restrictions on specific uses, yet still not be copyrighted (or copyrightable).
    In my opinion, I think it's so likely to be below the threshold that it should be kept. If Magog the Ogre or other users presented some examples of things that are this simple and still have been declared copyrighted, that would probably push it far enough into the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle to delete it, though. --Closeapple (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "precautionary principle" is a misused policy that is only really relevant for images that are straddling the fence. This image is stupid simple. Fry1989 eh? 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking there is a huge difference, I am betting one will read a few things, and the other won't. Almost time to call botman again ! Penyulap 21:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you Hektor it is just that, an opinion. One that is not based on fact and understanding of copyright, but out of fear and arrogance. Fry1989 eh? 01:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the arguments by Fry1989. Your opinion is not based in a deep understanding of the copyright issues. The image obviously does not meet the treshold of originality. You must learn about Copyright before nominating the file (and others of them) again. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep please: The file has been nominated twice and speedy kept twice, according to the reasons exposed above. Please stop abusing of the DR process and learn more about Copyright and treshold of originality. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to read my nomination and see that it is substantially different from the previous two? It is rather clear that a) you didn't bother to read it, or b) you are too stupid to understand the difference between an argument based on policy and one based on vague assertions. Given that your only "argument" for keep has zero logic and is pure ad hominem, I'm guessing it's both. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was absolutely uncalled for. And what policies, might I ask? The Wikipedia policies you're so happy to quote even though they have no force here on Commons? You say "other crap" has no bearing, when you should clearly know (since you're trying to conduct a DR regarding the copyright of an image) that "other crap" is essential here in helping us set and understand the bar for originality. You obviously know that no such bar has been set for South Korea, but somehow I doubt you're planning on nominating every South Korean logo we have just to get this one gone as well. You also haven't attempted to use any outside sources to describe to us where the South Korean bar might be set at, so all we can do is use our current understandings of originality, and by all accounts this image is grossly under the bar, and you know it. So instead you have to resort to attacking another user, who has just as much right to have their say here as you do. Fry1989 eh? 04:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down the lot of you, or I'll get on the telephone and tell your mummies you're not playing nice and need to be glared at !!!
The statement "No evidence this is below the threshold of originality in South Korea." needs some supporting evidence, and "Many nations (even most) would consider this above the threshold." would matter if many countries owned commons, we only have to worry about s.Korea and the USA where the servers are (generally) situated. If that 'more information please' issue can be hosed down before the whole freaking board catches on fire that would be cool. Now play nice !! I'm watching the lot of you -(o)-(o)- Penyulap 05:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is that files can't be kept if it can't be verified if they are free or not. As there is no section for South Korea at COM:TOO, we don't know anything about the threshold of originality there, so we can't tell whether it's as in Germany or whether it is as in the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually true for simple items. There is no need to prove something is free when it is too simple. I can have, or steal from the Internet, a picture of a triangle, and even if I confess I stole it, it's still not something that can be copyright, so we just keep it. It seems strange, but when you get into simple things, nobody can copyright the letter 'T' for example. Wihou i, you can wrie anymore, so they don't allow such things. Simple things are different to everything else, there are like, tens of thousands of files like that here, have a browse through Category:PD ineligible and see for yourself.
P.S. I just stole some File:Stolen Goo.png, to show I'll get away with it. When it's simple, the rules are different, still, that makes it pointy editing to make a point, flagrant copyvio, no permission, hmm, I don't know what else but I'll think of something. Penyulap 20:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, the stolen Goo has been protected, so that it's educational purpose can't be described. (triple-facepalm) Penyulap 21:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy  Keep. Not only me, but five-year-old kid would be able to reproduce that. This is the most typical example of logo, which contains only simple geometrical shapes and text. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Looking at pages such as COM:TOO and COM:FOP, it seems that countries which have recently gained independence from another country often have a very similar law. For example, former French colonies often have FOP rules similar to French law whereas former British colonies often have FOP rules similar to British law. Looking at COM:FOP, I see that the copyright laws of Japan, South Korea and the Republic of China all use very similar formulations. The main exception is that the South Korean law is missing one word, thereby removing commercial FOP for architecture in South Korea, so I would guess that South Korea and the Republic of China simply copied the copyright law of Japan when they gained independence in 1945. Although there is a possibility that the law might have changed in any of the countries since that point, there is also the possibility that South Korea might use the same threshold of originality as Japan. In that case: maybe OK, maybe not. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does COM:FOP have anything to do with this? Fry1989 eh? 20:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep to what Fry mentioned. 99.229.41.79 23:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept - I find the Stefan4 argument that the copyright law in South Korea is likely similar to that of Japan plausible, rather than to expect some extreme copyright law. I don't believe this meets the threshold of originality in a majority of countries. The olympic logo does not originate from South Korea as far as I know, so the only remaining elements to form a copyright issue are the text: PyeongChang 2018, an asterisk and a square. Nothing eligible for copyright here - Jcb (talk) 19:03, 3 June 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.

This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license (no license). I got unsure if the later givn license is valid.

Quote frm my talk page:


To be honest, I've tried making the changes and they just don't seem to work (probably not doing it right). I'm also having issues finding the exact templates to use. The GIS image comes from the GIS Department of the City of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The GIS map website (where the image came from) is here. The GIS Department says "The City of Murfreesboro GIS Department provides mapping services for city departments and the public...intended for public use and continued access..." which can be found here. Coinmanj (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will convert the problem tag now to a regular deletion request where this case can be discussed and decided. I not sure if is realy free as the named site has a "Copyright © 2008 City of Murfreesboro. All Rights Reserved." at the bottom. regards. --JuTa 19:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JuTa 19:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an email to the City to ask for clarification. Coinmanj (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The City's Public Information Officer, Chris Shofner, replied to my inquiry and said that he did not know if the GIS system fell under Tennessee's Open Records Act or something similar. He forwarded my question to the city attorney and assistant attorney for further help, so I'm waiting on a reply from them. If needed I can provide a transcript/screenshot of the emails as I get them. Coinmanj (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Any replies recived from the City Attorney should be forwarded to COM:OTRS, so we have an internal archive of said discussion. Someone from OTRS will restore the file once the permissions/copyright status of the file have been confirmed FASTILY 22:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]