Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/02/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![21 File:Benjamin Piat - tournage clip "Marquise" à Pise (Italie).jpg](#File:Benjamin_Piat_-_tournage_clip_"Marquise"_à_Pise_(Italie).jpg){kind=link}
![86 File:Один из "Мажоров" 2014-02-10 21-32.jpg](#File:Один_из_"Мажоров"_2014-02-10_21-32.jpg){kind=link}
![87 File:Один из "мажоров" 2014-02-10 21-24.jpg](#File:Один_из_"мажоров"_2014-02-10_21-24.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_st._şi_Takaeshi_Matsusaka_(Campion_absolut_al_Japoniei)_dr.,_BUCURESTI_1968.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source link is unavailable while license reviewing. And movie poster. —레비Revi 03:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The poster of this movie it's published under a CC BY SA license. This is the official site of the movie where you can read, in the licensing section, in the first paragraph of the section entitled "Contents of this website" (translated from Spanish): "All the contents of this site, except oterwise noted, are licensed under the license Creative Commmons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Uported License. This license also applies for the promotionales materials of the movie such as the official poster and other graphical pieces available for download in the section Press Room". --FrancoIacomella (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep per above + 
Info Tagged by me with {{LicenseReview}}. Generally, I tag only files with {{LicenseReview}} with a "certain chance" of passing the review... Gunnex (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. LicenseReview Confirmed. —레비Revi 02:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
delete please 강대근 (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
delete please 강대근 (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
delete please 강대근 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
delete please 강대근 (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
delete please 강대근 (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
delete please 강대근 (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
BECAUSE THE SO NAMED AZAWAD DOES NOT EXIST, THE REPUBLIC OF MALI AS IT IS SHOWN IS A MEMBER OF THE UNITED NATION AND ITS SECURITY COUNCIL. 84.1.151.233 23:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. The file is used on multiple pages in more than thirty projects, and we're not about to yank it out from under their feet simply because someone doesn't like the (actual, historical or hypothetical) boundaries shown. If you disagree with it, locate the caps lock key on your keyboard, press it once, register an account, upload your preferred version under a different file name, and obtain consensus for its use on each project. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep quickly? The so-named Azawad disappeared quite awhile ago. It isn't even on the current map. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept although I suggest to copy a version with azawad to another name (for historical purposes) Denniss (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
I am sorry, but France has no freedom-of-panorama exemption for publicly displayed works. We might discuss whether the 2 displays/posters are de minimis, but I doubt. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- ????--Mbzt (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm agree with Turelio : de minimis is not valid here. - Bzh-99 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Les affiches étant désormais floutées, la raison avancée pour supprimer l'image n'est donc plus d'actualité.--Mbzt (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm agree with Turelio : de minimis is not valid here. - Bzh-99 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative works have been blurred, I'm deleting the first revision PierreSelim (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Doesn't represent anything but a cardboard cutout for her character on Mr. & Mrs. Smith but won't be used in an article Lady Lotus (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- More to the point, the cardboard cutout, which is the only thing interesting about the photo, is certainly copyrighted and I don't see any basis to think its rights have been released. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: As part of upload cleanup russavia (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No usable content given. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Extremely poor image quality puts this image outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
http://www.casaga.org/ has a no commercial use license. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Picture from http://www.amazon.com/Al-Aqmar-Living-Testimony-Fatemiyeen/dp/0953927008. Can't see why it should be PD. тнояsтеn ⇔ 09:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Picture from http://www.amazon.in/Al-Juyushi-A-Vision-Fatemiyeen/dp/images/0953927016. Can't see why it should be PD. тнояsтеn ⇔ 09:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This image are not useful for an educational purpose (see COM:SCOPE). Juggler2005 (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is of a performer and appears many places on the web including [1] here. It would appear to be a photograph of the subject named "Benjamin Piat" making it unlikely that this is user's "own work", and a possible COM:COPYVIO Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
![22:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/02/11#c-Ellin_Beltz-2014-02-11T22:26:00.000Z-File:Benjamin_Piat_-_tournage_clip_"Marquise"_à_Pise_(Italie).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
![22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/02/11#c-INeverCry-2014-02-18T22:05:00.000Z-File:Benjamin_Piat_-_tournage_clip_"Marquise"_à_Pise_(Italie).jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work - snowmen (and soft sculptures thereof) are explicitly copyrightable per Eden Toys Inc v. Marshall Field & Company, 675 F. 2d 498 (2nd Cir. 1982). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PRA and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Happy new year 2007.png Эlcobbola talk 21:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, declared to be "own work", but copyrighted to "MIJD". MIJD stands for the "Movimiento Independiente de Justicia y Dignidad" (and en:Raúl Castells is the leader of that organization). Gunnex (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no release of copyright on the page cited as source for the image. The picture is of a film director of low quality and lacking camera meta data. There is no indication of authorship of image on the Next Education World site, making this a possible [{COM:COPYVIO]]. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This colorized black and white image is of low quality, lacking description that would put it within COM:SCOPE. It is unused and uncategorized. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Low quality, small size image with no metadata also found [2] here marked (AFD) as source, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion (Colombian web design company). BrightRaven (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable, presumably living subject, unused on the project is likely out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion for a non notable DJ. BrightRaven (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion (defunct website) BrightRaven (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion (defunct website). BrightRaven (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion (defunct website). BrightRaven (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion (running club). BrightRaven (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, no clear educational value. -Pete F (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Nonnotable image not useful for educational purposes under COM:SCOPE, also possibly lifted from somewhere else TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Same for these:
TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion (New Zealand winery estate). BrightRaven (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, simple drawing of the sun, self-created artwork. BrightRaven (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork (defunct website) BrightRaven (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal photo album and this image of three non-notable, presumably living people is more of a holiday snap than within COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This image is obviously formerly half-toned, and is unlikely in that format to be the "own work" of the uploader. Plus the low quality and lack of camera metadata this image looks like a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
File:I took this picture of an actual real life cyborg, he has a sawzaw for an arm, he was born this was this is very rare!! 2014-02-10 13-59.jpg
[edit]
prank photo, outside of scope. (uploader has also given us an image used to vandalize WP, and appears to have no purpose other than unconstructive edits/uploads) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
File:It's a tiger standing on two legs whering a shirt holding a house cat 2014-01-06 05-55.jpg
[edit]
Photomontage outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyright violation, appears to be a derivative of other photos, has no indication of sources. -Pete F (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be a derivative work of a book cover: File:Jayananda book.jpg being claimed as an own work. At the least, we need permissions but my feeling is that it's a copyvio. In any case, we have enough many images in Category:Jayananda Dasa now. Rahul Bott (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a credit watermark at the top left corner which perhaps differs from the username of the uploader who claims it as an own work. At the least, we need some clarification but most likely, this is a copyright violation. Rahul Bott (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This image's small size, low resolution and lack of camera meta data, as well as its presence here [3] as a twitter icon, suggest this image is not "own work" of uploader but possibly a COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Logo above the originality threshold, licensed as own work. OTRS needed. Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Invalid license. How can you have a "life of the author plus 70 years" license without identifying the artist? (Is it a self-portrait? If so, she died only 62 years ago.) No date, no source, no artist. 75.4.226.179 10:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Low quality image of a non-notable, presumably living subject is probably out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the uploader's own work based on http://www.pinterest.com/explore/chris-messina/, http://hollywoodneuz.com/chris-messina-biography-profile-pictures-news/, and other sites. Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Нет разрешения на публикацию фото от автора Goran Mehkek / CROPIX, на страничке, где размещён файл стоит Copyright © Business.hr Dogad75 (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
False licensing. This image is no older than 1937 (the date of the club's founding), and probably much much newer. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -Pete F (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file + argentine works, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated) 1972 or "Década de 1960"/1960-1969, licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, and most likely not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US +95 years. See also File:Justo Solsona (1972).jpg (part), dated with 1972 versus "Década de 1960"... Gunnex (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This image is indeed found at the location stated, but their pages are marked (c) Swagga Music, it is also the musician's facebook page photo [4] although the commons version has had the background chopped off. I nominate this image as a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Norman Reedus and My Wife ! Yeah with the characters from the Boondock Saints she was embarrassed of me showing her off with this picture Norman allowed to take for her a genuine keepsake , thus fore leading t 2014-02-10 01-16.jpg
[edit]
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Blurry. There is a clearer version of this file. Briarfallen (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Though I didn't find the "clearer version", Delete, as it's not usable due to quality. --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per Turelio, and I agree, nomination would be easier to process with a link to the "clearer" file. -Pete F (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Tagged/annoated for chemical mistake for ~18 months; unused except in ru.wp userspace gallery. Possible replacement File:Amide hydrolysis.svg DMacks (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 15:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparently this is a high-school physics test in Greek, see s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#What_is_this.3F. Out of project scope, and probably not own work as claimed. This, that and the other (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, and copyright status unclear Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Sahil sushant sharma---- -Sahil Sushant Sharma is an Indian automobile designer- He is the founder of S-S- Buddha Design---Biography-Sahil holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering andTransportation Design from 2014-02-10 20-26.jpg
[edit]
self-promotion, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Small size, low quality and missing camera meta data, plus this image's presence on other websites, including [5] here, suggest this is a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Article de:Space Melody deleted on de-WP (notability missing; advertising) WolfgangRieger (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Article de:Space Melody deleted on de-WP (notability missing; advertising) WolfgangRieger (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Article de:Space Melody deleted on de-WP (notability missing; advertising) WolfgangRieger (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It's bad. It was replaced with [File:'Stemma Piccolomini d'Aragona'.jpg] Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment It would be nice to know what is "bad" about this -- to my untrained eye, the images look about the same. Here is a link for anybody else looking to compare them: File:'Stemma Piccolomini d'Aragona'.jpg -Pete F (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: THey do look very similar, but the png is a much larger file. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a commercially produced stock photograph. I doubt the uploader is the creator. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Taken from [6] at [7] with unclear copyright notices or evidence of permission TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
![[6]](http://www.angelfire.com/nh/joshssite/tylaw.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 21:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:DW: unfree cards. Stefan4 (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
No me gusta como salgo en la foto Vanessalafaurie (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright status isn't clear, "own work" by subject, no OTRS..not in use in any Wikimedia project. -Pete F (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGING. Stefan4 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- ルールをよく知らず、失礼しました。宜しくお願い致します。--Kraprabe (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
modern advertisment poster The Yeti 13:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
нарушение АП kosun (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
![21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/02/11#c-Indeedous-2014-02-11T21:46:00.000Z-File:Один_из_"Мажоров"_2014-02-10_21-32.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
![22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/02/11#c-INeverCry-2014-02-18T22:04:00.000Z-File:Один_из_"Мажоров"_2014-02-10_21-32.jpg){kind=link}
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
![21:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/02/11#c-Indeedous-2014-02-11T21:47:00.000Z-File:Один_из_"мажоров"_2014-02-10_21-24.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
![22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/02/11#c-INeverCry-2014-02-18T22:04:00.000Z-File:Один_из_"мажоров"_2014-02-10_21-24.jpg){kind=link}
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Small size, low quality, no camera meta data and presence on multiple websites, example [8] here, suggest this image is not uploader's "own work" but a COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
File:صوره محمود المشرقي -رجل تسويق واعمال مختلفه -درس في تعز اليمن الثانويه تخرج عام 2006 -ثم اكمل دراسته في جامعه تعز -كليه 2014-01-06 10-22.jpg
[edit]
Low quality, no camera metadata, non-notable and presumably living subject puts this image outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This new user has uploaded five images. The other four were obvious copyvios from the web and have been deleted. This does not show up in Google search, but it appears to be made from the same sort of images as the other four. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Batman toys
[edit]Derivative work of product packaging/toys/doll
- File:1960's DC Comics batmobile.jpg
- File:Corgi no77305 1960s DC Comics Batmarine Box.JPG
- File:Corgi no77307 1980s DC Comics Batmobile Box.JPG
- File:Corgi no77316 1990s DC Comics Batmobile Box .JPG
- File:Corgi no77317 1940s DC Comics Batmobile Box .jpg
- File:Corgi no77321 2000 DC Comics Batsubmersible Box.jpg
- File:Corgi no77329 2000 DC Comics Batmobile Box .jpg
- File:Corgi no77351 1990s DC Comics Subway Rocket Box.jpg
- File:Fat-Face-Batman.jpg
- File:Mattel noN8016 1-50 Scale 1966 Batboat Box.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 21:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aleksandr.Brilliant (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Screenshots of web site with questionable notability. Photos may be useful but should be uploaded without other design elements.
- File:Полезный Блог - страница - Рецепт с пошаговым описанием приготовления 2.jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - блок - популярные блюда с ингредиентом.jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - блок - Развернутый рецепт со списком ингредиентов.jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - страница - Список продуктов.jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - страница - Список рецептов.jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - страница - Рецепт с пошаговым описанием приготовления.jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - страница - О продукте Абрикос.jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - блок - Топ 10 рецептов.jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - блок - Ингредиенты.jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - блок - А знаете ли Вы что....jpg
- File:Полезный Блог - блок - Подписаться на новые рецепты.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joan Domenech (talk · contribs)
[edit]These images are possible COM:COPYVIOs, even if not stated. All low quality images are outside of COM:SCOPE
- File:Linea 18.jpg was found [9]
- File:Emt general.jpg was found at [10], dated 15 Julio, 2010
- File:T2 (Interior).jpg Metadata credits image to "Nueva terminal aeropuerto de Manises.Foto de Juan J. Monzó" which is in no way similar to uploader's name
Small size and/or low quality plus the absence of metadata from a camera suggest that the following are not the user's "own work" either, and possible COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:Valencia Tower.jpg
- File:Ubicacion.JPG
- File:Terminal Principal (Exterior).jpg
- File:Terminal Principal (Interior).JPG (exceptionally poor quality)
- File:Terminal Reginal (interior).jpg (exceptionally poor quality)
- File:T2 (Exterior).jpg - obvious promo shot with the uniformed employees and the dramatic sky
- File:Metro-Valencia-horarios-Aeropuerto.jpg (exceptionally poor quality)
- File:Antiguo edificio terminal.JPG (exceptionally poor quality)
- File:ValenciaAirport2.png (oversaturated like the city transit above)
- File:ValenciaAirport.JPG (a second copy of the foregoing with same issues)
Low quality images with camera metadata
- File:Terminal Regional (Exterior).jpg blurry, low quality image with camera meta data possibly rephotographed from an exhibit, display or publication.
- File:Terminal Regional (Interior2).jpg ( while this one has a camera stamp on the meta data, it looks like it was rephotographed from an exhibit or display and is not (as stated) the user's own work.
User also has uploaded logos and charts.
- File:Emt general.jpg
- File:Linea 18.jpg
- File:Valencia Tower.jpg
- File:Ubicacion.JPG
- File:Terminal Regional (Interior2).jpg
- File:Terminal Regional (Exterior).jpg
- File:Terminal Principal (Exterior).jpg
- File:Terminal Principal (Interior).JPG
- File:Terminal Reginal (interior).jpg
- File:T2 (Exterior).jpg
- File:T2 (Interior).jpg
- File:Antiguo edificio terminal.JPG
- File:ValenciaAirport2.png
- File:ValenciaAirport.JPG
- File:Metro-Valencia-horarios-Aeropuerto.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of toys/dolls
- File:Despicable-Me-Minions.jpg
- File:Fat-Face-Bunny.jpg
- File:Archie-the-Red-Fox.jpg
- File:Winnie-the-Pooh.jpg
- File:Kero-Kero-Keroppi.jpg
- File:Alice-the-Giraffe.jpg
- File:Gary-the-Seagull.jpg
- File:Bubble-Leg-Monster.jpg
- File:Chu-Totoro.jpg
- File:Andy-the-Android.jpg
- File:Penelope-the-Bunny.jpg
- File:Enter-the-Baby-Dragon.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 21:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr.hien0909 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:3.mohammadreza tajik - محمدرضا تاجیک.jpg
- File:2 . mohammadreza tajik - محمدرضا تاجیک.jpg
- File:Mohammadreza tajik - محمدرضا تاجیک.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Solenoidvalvesuk (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:269 coaxial solenoid valve.JPG
- File:270 coaxial solenoid valve internals.JPG
- File:271 stainless coaxial solenoid valve.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TECNOLOGIA CAQUETA (talk · contribs)
[edit]Spam or blatant advertising.
- File:Cotizacion General No. 000236 Portatil JHON CARLOS.pdf
- File:Cotizacion General No. 000236 Portatil JHON CARLOS.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta redes y Equipos Tecnologicos Servicio a Nivel nacional.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y su Poder De trabajo Honesto.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y soluciones tecnologiacas.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Servicios.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Compumax.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Compacq unidos.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Samsung.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Qbex.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta Venta de Portatiles de Ultima Generacion.jpg
- File:Tecnologia caqueta Venta de Impresoras.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta en el Mundo Entero.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta Innovacion Sin Limites.jpg
- File:Productos y servicios Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:Logotipo Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Lenovo.jpg
- File:Logo Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:Gerente Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:Certificado de Davivienda a Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Certificacion a Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar por parte de El Banco Caja Social.jpg
- File:Certificado Bancolombia a Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Carta de Presentacion de Tecnologia Caqueta.pdf
- File:Certificacion de Compugia Ingenierias a Juan Alejandro Urquina y Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:HOJA DE VIDA JUAN ALEJANDRO URQUINA TOVAR 1.pdf
- File:Certificado de Compugiar Ingenierias a Tecnologia Caqueta y Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Certificado Icell.jpg
- File:Certificado Dane.jpg
- File:Certificado de La Super Intendencia de Industria y Comercio.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vicentesgjrhotmail (talk · contribs)
[edit]Blurry pics with only little educational value
- File:ARZM - SAGUÃO PRINCIPAL.jpg
- File:ARZM - SAGUÃO PRINCIPAL..jpg
- File:ARZM - CHECK IN DA AZUL LINHAS AÉREAS..jpg
- File:ARZM - CHECK IN DA AZUL LINHAS AÉREAS.jpg
91.66.57.1 08:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Андрей Покровский (talk · contribs)
[edit]The following files are possible COM:COPYVIOs:
- File:Андрей Покровский.jpg found at [11], marked Copyright © 2011 Интерактивный каталог Всё для праздника
- File:Покровский Андрей.jpg found at [12], marked 2000-2014 © компания ИКС-Медиа
- File:Конкурс Зажги Звезду.jpg reprint of newspaper, possible COM:COPYVIO
- File:Обложка диска Радуюсь.jpg album cover, possible COM:COPYVIO
- File:Обложка диска Мой Петербург.jpg on Russian facebook [13]
- File:Внутреннее оформление диска "Мой Петербург".jpg Left image is on facebook exactly, promotional copy also out of COM:SCOPE
The following fail COM:SCOPE due to their promotional nature and/or the copy attached to them. Additionally they may also be COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:Объедало и Менюшка.jpg poster
- File:Внутреннее оформление диска Радуюсь.jpg poster
- File:Конкурс Зажигай на Васильевском.jpg poster
- File:Конкурс Открытие.jpg poster or certificate
- File:ПГУПС.jpg poster or certificate
- File:Сертификат спектакля.jpg
- File:Любовь закрыта на ремонт, спектакль.jpg
- File:Любовь закрыта на ремонт.jpg
- File:Грани театра масс.jpg
- File:Союз концертных деятелей СПб.jpg is an unused logo, out of COM:SCOPE for promotional nature of copy.
This group of images have small size, and/or low quality. Additionally they lack camera meta data becoming possible COM:COPYVIOs
- File:Павлов Михаил Михайлович.jpg
- File:Горковенко Станислав Константинович.jpg
- File:Орлов, Олег Леонидович.jpg
The remainder of the user's uploads featuring people were taken with a Canon camera. There is one streetscape without camera meta data, but I did not nominate it because I cannot find a match online.
- File:Конкурс "Зажигай на Васильевском".jpg
- File:Конкурс "Открытие".jpg
- File:ПГУПС.jpg
- File:Павлов Михаил Михайлович.jpg
- File:Горковенко Станислав Константинович.jpg
- File:Союз концертных деятелей СПб.jpg
- File:Объедало и Менюшка.jpg
- File:Сертификат спектакля.jpg
- File:Любовь закрыта на ремонт, спектакль.jpg
- File:Любовь закрыта на ремонт.jpg
- File:Грани театра масс.jpg
- File:Орлов, Олег Леонидович.jpg
- File:Внутреннее оформление диска "Мой Петербург".jpg
- File:Внутреннее оформление диска "Радуюсь".jpg
- File:Обложка диска "Мой Петербург".jpg
- File:Обложка диска "Радуюсь".jpg
- File:Покровский Андрей.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Андрей Покровский (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyright violation, because EXIF data (if available) indicate a different photographer rather than the uploader.
- File:Музыкальная школа им. Римского-Корсакова.jpg
- File:Покровский в роли Мейерхольда.jpg
- File:Андрей в роли Мейерхольда.jpg
- File:Ан. Покровский в роли Мейерхольда.jpg
- File:А.В.Покровский в роли Мейерхольда.jpg
- File:Андрей Викторович Покровский в роли Мейерхольда.jpg
- File:А. Покровский в роли Мейерхольда.jpg
- File:Покровский Андрей Викторович.jpg
- File:Андрей Викторович Покровский.jpg
- File:Спектакль.jpg
- File:Прогон 069.jpg
- File:Концерт, посвящ. снятию блокады. Капелла..jpg
- File:Андрей Покровский в роли Мейерхольда.jpg
- File:Премия дорожного радио 2013г..JPG
- File:W7aaalMzK8A.jpg
A.Savin 00:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Виталий1407 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SCOPE - unused, low-quality (some), non-notable people, Commons is not your personal web host. Maybe copyvios; of those that have metadata, every last camera is different (Canon EOS 500D, D-LUX 4, iPhone 5, and NIKON D3S), suggesting multiple authors. Images appear to have been taken from social networks (e.g., File:Анна Гогунская.JPG is here).
- File:Анна Гогунская 27.JPG
- File:Виталий Гогунский.JPG
- File:Анна Гогунская.JPG
- File:На бою Александра Емельяненко. Анна Гогунская.jpg
- File:Анна Гогунская и Виталий Гогунский Рим ИТАЛИЯ 2013 ГОД.jpg
- File:Виталий Гогунский и Анна Гогунская Израиль 2013 год.jpg
- File:Свадьба Виталия и Анны Гогунских Флоренция.jpg
- File:Свадьба Виталия и Анны Гогунских.JPG
- File:Виталий и Анна Гогунские Черногория 2013 год.jpg
- File:Виталий Гогунский с женой Анной Гогунской на Мальдивах.JPG
Эlcobbola talk 21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Обозначение двумя красными огнями локомотива, стоящего в хвосте поезда, двигающегося вагонами вперед 2014-02-11 00-42.jpg
[edit]
This appears to be a video game screenshot. See COM:DW. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The uploader wrote "Permission required to reproduce." So the licence may be invalid. Moreover, it is out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion. BrightRaven (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I created this corporate logo and uploaded it to Wikipedia in order to identify the company and its book imprints. It is now classified as a logo. bookjunkee
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like an image created for a school/college course, out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a poster for a school/college assignment. Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot of some type. Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
See also closed delreq for 2_ and 3_applique): Lacking description; claimed copyright by someone else than the person who put it on Flickr -- Deadstar (msg) 11:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
See also deleted 2._ and 3._applique files: Lacking description; claimed copyright by someone else than the person who put it on Flickr -- Deadstar (msg) 11:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
See also deleted 2._ and 3._applique: Lacking description; claimed copyright by someone else than the person who put it on Flickr -- Deadstar (msg) 11:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
already exist Autobiogram (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Poster for an exhibition with all sorts of artworks depicted - no license given for seperate (likely recent) artworks. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely uploader is copyright holder for this theatre advertising poster. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely this promotional poster is own work. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file -- Deadstar (msg) 12:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Image of a recent sculpture, not self made. License is incorrect. (Sculpture page: http://www.goulvenelies.com/) -- Deadstar (msg) 12:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted material, ok for Wikipedia, not for Commons Judithcomm (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Compilation of three images, two of which are artwork, the third a photograph (presumably of the painter). Unused, likely incorrect license as (art or the photograph) not self made -- Deadstar (msg) 12:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Advertising -- Deadstar (msg) 12:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Advertising. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
False licensing. It is CC-BY-NC, not CC-BY-SA --Namoroka (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Probably not compatible with Commons licenses: Hatsune Miku images are licensed under the noncommercial CC-BY-NC [14] Nakonana (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
File:Aurel Barbu, antrenor de judo al lotului naţional de seniori 1977-1983 şi al lotului olimpic de juniori 1990-1992, în România.jpg
[edit]
Unlikely this portrait photograph is taken by uploader. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Personal, unused, out of scope. —레비Revi 13:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Anton Gesink şi Aurel Barbu la Campionatele Europene de Judo din Helsinki, Finlanda, în 1979.jpg
[edit]
1979 photograph, unlikely to be self made. I can't find source for it. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Aurel Barbu împreună cu Hiroaki Fujita (Profesor la Academia de Judo din Tokio) st. şi Takaeshi Matsusaka (Campion absolut al Japoniei) dr., BUCURESTI 1968.jpg
[edit]_st._%C5%9Fi_Takaeshi_Matsusaka_(Campion_absolut_al_Japoniei)_dr.,_BUCURESTI_1968.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_st._%C5%9Fi_Takaeshi_Matsusaka_(Campion_absolut_al_Japoniei)_dr.,_BUCURESTI_1968.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1968 image of three renowned judoka, unlikely to be self made -- Deadstar (msg) 13:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image -- Deadstar (msg) 13:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This looks like a professional photograph. It was used on a blog well before it was uploaded here. On the wiki page for Antonio Alvarado it says "self portrait" as the caption. I think the license is incorrect and this image is copyrighted. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
No source, not self made, license incorrect. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Only upload by user, no EXIF information. Although TinEye/Google can't find it, I doubt this is self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Source website http://www.kdstv-thuringia.de/ doesn't have any license displayed. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: A few more of the uploads by Property (talk · contribs) seem to be from this website and should be considered for deletion.
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
1955 painting, still copyrighted -- Deadstar (msg) 16:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It says that "You are prohibited from using this work in a stand alone manner." The file is therefore unfree. Stefan4 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
No properly documented permission. Taken from [15], where it only says that this is a "private" image from the 1920ies. That could mean anything. Rosenzweig τ 17:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Derivative of a work deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Emadshokouhi. Either that DR got it wrong, or this file needs to be deleted as well. Courcelles 17:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pinging User:EugeneZelenko and User:INeverCry, the nominator and closer (and only participants) of that DR. Courcelles 17:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Taken from a website where no author is named, but where it is clearly noted that this is an excerpt from a 1925 map. To then claim that the author is "unknown" is downright lazy. Futhermore, there is a URAA problem, the map is still protected in the USA until January 1, 1921. Rosenzweig τ 17:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Obviously not simple enough to be below the threshold of originality in China, which is very low. Previous discussion page see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Zhengzhou_Metro_Logo(Logo_Only).svg Siyuwj (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
According to the museum's official homepage ([16]) it is a work of art. Freedom of Panorama in Denmark only extends to buildings. heb [T C E] 17:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism_2014#Lilya_Brik_portrait_copyright, it is unclear whether the Lilya Brik Rodchenko portrait is in the public domain (erring on the side that it isn't), in which case this derivative work would be a copyvio czar ♔ 18:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Mauvaise taille de fichier Jacques Godin (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Mauvaise taille de fichier Jacques Godin (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Ich bin ein Mannager --Ich heiße B-M--Ich bin für Rapper,Musiker,Künstler,-------Wer mich brauch einfach anschreiben --Ich komme aus dem Kosovo-Aber bin bereit mit allen zu arbeiten egal-mit wenn wer berüh 2014-02-11 19-46.png
[edit]
We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Content is just vandalism, something like: "I am a manager, my name is B-M, I support rappers, musicians, artists. Just write me. I'm from Kosovo but I work with everyone, who wants to be famous just has to write me."
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
only serves as an illustration for the uploader's autobiography on enwiki Qwertyus (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Argentine work, undated and licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}. es:Carlos Horacio Ponce de León lived 1914-2077, was nominated bishop in 1966 and visted in that function pope Paulus VI, so the image was created between 1966-1977. If created after 1970 not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US +95 years. Gunnex (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Scaled down dupe from SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Scaled down dupe from SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Not professional art, just a fan drawing. Doesn't represent anything or will be used in an article Lady Lotus (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Not professional art, just a fan drawing. Doesn't represent anything or will be used in an article Lady Lotus (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the gravestone is work by Anton Bitežnik (d. 1949). Eleassar (t/p) 20:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I DO NOT WISH ANY PART OF THIS TO APPEAR HERE 64.229.17.212 20:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copyrighted photograph Knut. (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Argentine work, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated) 1990, licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US (and Argentina) till the end of 2085 (+95 years). Gunnex (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparent copyright violation. According to the file information provided, the source of this map is the National Register of Historic Places nomination form for this historic district and the author is the Texas Historical Commission. Because the Texas Historical Commission is an agency of the State of Texas and not the United States federal government, the {{PD-USGov}} tag does not apply and the file is under copyright. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 22:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Very blurry, a similar picture exist. Briarfallen (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
low-quality penis picture 84.75.58.180 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Argentine works, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated) "before 1981" and licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}. If created after 1970 not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US +95 years. Gunnex (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
per COM:COA, sorry. Jebulon (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- "So, CoA found on Commons may be (1) reproductions of PD-old artworks, (2) recent artwork with a clear "free" licence, (3) self-made reproductions. The rest should be deleted (and eventually will be)." This picture is not (1), nor (2), neither (3). Therefore it should be deleted as per the Commons policy.--Jebulon (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable artwork created by non-notable Wikipedian. odder (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- This nomination affects also File:Tea Who You Yeah Bunny greeting card by Mareklug, obverse.jpg
- Keep To keep this simple, we do allow some uploads by editors of personal images, and this is in use within Mareklug's userspace on pl.wp on a wikibio of himself. As such, whilst they don't fulfill the "educational scope" that we usually look for, they do fulfill the long-standing allowing of some personal images by editors. russavia (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Allow me to correct some of the assertions made by the nominator and by the first responder:
- The article in question has been temporarily moved to the author's user space because the admin who deleted it from main space felt it was not sourced and as such it needed Polishing. It has been Polished, and contains unimpeachable sources. The admin has been asked to reevalutate his action in light of the article improvements. The images are used in the article, and are imperative as documentation (visual) of the verbal description.
- Artwork is notable on several counts: It represents a real object, a commercially produced greeting card that is a work-for-hire, and one that can be obtained by anyone. It gets better: in the best of wiki traditions, anyone can alter the greeting card project, building a derivative work (for example, with one click, choose a patterned background in place of the original's uniform gray -- and produce materially that version, by paying the work-for-hire fee to the producer and collecting the modified card. The art is PD, and the art is work-for-hire executable and modifiable. It is really wiki-art!
- English Wikipedia w:User:ToAruShiroiNeko has committed publicly on IRC channel #wikipedia-en (the channel logs will easily confirm this) to write a BLP of this "non-notable Wikipedian", based, in part on the Reliable Sources already made available to him. One such source is the first source in the pl:Mareklug article mentioned above. It provides clear notability for the Wikipedian in question, including documenting date and place of birth, not to mention, notable activity in the sciences, poetry, translation, publishing, editing of a major literary publication that is archived at Library of Congress, held in special collections by Brown University, Rhode Island, USA, as well as Utah State University Libraries, Logan, Utah, United States. Also, the English Wikipedia BLP w:Douglas Hofstadter, as well as at least three articles pertaining to Hofstadter's books contain red links to the Wikipedian in question, as the Wikipedian is notably included in these books. The Wikipedian is also notable for his own artificial life research, published in the 1st Artificial Life Workshop proceedings, the seminal book ALIFE1, edited by Christopher Langton, which is credited with starting the field of artificial life. In sum, the Wikipedian is notable.
- the artwork has already been used publicly in a campaign to expose Chinese counterfeiters of w:Canada Goose (clothing) parkas. The phenomenon is already documented in the article -- and the image descriptions themselves -- and the social/educational campaign using these images is underway.
- In light of the above arguments, the nominator is asked to speedily close the deletion request as mistaken, and refuted by incontrovertible evidence. --Mareklug talk 13:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Yann (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Aside from any merit of the uploads as such, these two files are being used on an WMF project now, in a draft of a userified article, where the only complaint on record made by the userifying admin (pl:Wikipedysta:WTM) was: this needs sourcing, and was posted in main space prematurely, and you know that very well -- now go work on it. Implication being, the userified article is bound to be a main space article again Real Soon Now™. So, pray tell, on what basis are you two (nominator/administrator/bureaucrat User:odder and administrator user:yannf) demanding the very removal of media that is supporting a WMF project? Hmmm? Isn't providing a repository of free media to various WFM projects, especially Wikipedias, the central core job of Wikimedia Commons? Am I mistaken? Or are odder and yannf not seeing clearly this Tuesday? Did merit take a hike? Please check your prejudices and feeble rationale at the door. Neither is permitted in serious matters. Thank you in advance for seeing the light. --Mareklug talk 14:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per what russavia said, the nomination reason is basically an irrelevant argument regardless of whether it's true or not. -— Isarra ༆ 22:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The artwork is certainly not as notable as say File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg. However, notability of the artwork isn't that relevant here. Also, we certainly do not require notability of the creator for our content as that would mean the deletion of nearly all the uploads on commons. The file in question is in project scope since it is in use in the users own userspace. You can also easily argue that it is a sample for w:Greeting card. As mentioned, we do not normally worry about uploads such as this one unless the user engages strictly in self publication through commons. Mareklug has contribution to wikimedia projects to support the contrary. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep those images are definitely not suitable for main namespace nor they have any educational use they, anyway they can fit within userspace. However allowing usage in user ns doesn't imply overexposure attempts we are facing, those attempts should, definitely, end asap. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per russavia. But odder's concerns affect the categories which were applied to these 2 images. I have put them into the "User page images"-cat. --High Contrast (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Russavia. The file is used in pl.wiki and meta. Taivo (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per russavia and mareklug -Pete F (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: While I do understand why this files are nominated we allow user to upload a few files for personal use. I see no reason to make an exception in this case and disallow it. Kept per previous discussion. If the files are not used anymore the should be deleted of course. For now there is no consensus to delete this file's because they are out of scope. Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hardly distinguishable image - image hardly discernable on a normal computer screen sats (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no problem. Keep. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- OK so it has been re-named, and the image is slightly lightened - but the user so far has only contributed gibberish. See no point in withdrawing the deletion request so far. sats (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Three basic problems: 1) it does not show a situation in February (people’s clothes, visible ground, no snow), 2) the carriage has letters ČSD, which means Czech state railways, which operated in the years 1918-1939 and 1945-1992, 3) the soldier does not have a Soviet uniform. These reasons lead to the conclusion that it may show the deportations of Germans or Hungarians from the Czechoslovak Republic after 1945.
A smaller issue is the fact that the photograph was uploaded without any source information, as the two supposed sources do not contain an original or information on it’s provenience. Totomka (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC).jpg){kind=link}
- Keep. The file "description" (weblinked for your convenience) comes from the article which was illustrated with this historic image. Please don't manipulate what the full file description says following the article, quote: "First wave of mass deportations began on the night of 9 February 1940. The second, on 13 April 1940. The third, on 29 June 1940." Obviously, the photo wasn't taken in February. D'oh. And don't lie about an upload "without any source". I gave you two sources, not just one. Poeticbent talk 11:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum. Both Poland and Czechoslovakia were targetted by the Nazi-Soviet invasion of 1939. The railway stock and the letters ČSD on the wagons could have been there from before World War II. How am I supposed to know? I'm just following policy/guidelines in here. Poeticbent talk 12:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The listed source does not give a clear copyright release for the scans under an open license (such as OGL). The underlying work is Crown Copyright and is not disputed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Also affected - File:The London Gazette 9198.djvu Category:The London Gazette 1836 Category:The London Gazette 1837 Category:The London Gazette 1901
If someone's willing to do the legwork The London Gazzette has a contact form here - http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/about/contact-us ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep No new copyright is created by the mechanical act of scanning. See Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#United Kingdom .2F UK: "Of course, a raw unenhanced scan or photocopy of a PD illustration in an old book is OK, as purely mechanical copying cannot even in the UK create a new copyright.". - Htonl (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of copyright that is or isn't created from the act of scanning, the new Gazette website www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/104 states "The Gazette is a rich source of open data that is free to access, use and re-purpose. All data held within The Gazette publications, unless stated otherwise, is Crown Copyright and is therefore free for you to use under the Open Government Licence." so it's especially clear now and there's no issues with uploading any Gazette, right up to the present day, it would seem. Rant: It would be good if all UK Government websites, Flickr feeds and the like could actually start singing from the same OGL hymn sheet, I'm getting rather fed up with all the GOV.UK websites being under the OGL, but Flickr feeds being licenced under CC-BY-NC-ND and similar licences, with next to no response when asking our beloved civil servants to re-licence to CC-BY or confirm various Flickr feeds are under the OGL licence. Nick (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- In light of that discovery I have added the {{OGL}} tag to the file. - Htonl (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- 'Withdrawn, pending confirmation... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
No educational value. Yaris678 (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
To expand on the above, there is no indication of what this image is or how it might be related to en:Harrow Fair, which is the only place where the image is used. Yaris678 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
A bit blurred. Superseded by File:Ganesh Rai1.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The other one is similar, but much clearer image. So this worse quality photo is out of scope, because it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "better clearer" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This image is blurred, the other one is not blurred. According to deletion policy the low quality image can be deleted. Especially in this case it should be deleted, because very similar better quality image exists. (Deletion policy says also, that very similar image is redundant and it's possible to delete it.) --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused blurred image. Better quality image is already in Commons Alpertron (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Windtunnel building project
[edit]The below images depict what turns out to be components of a windtunnel (good thing uploader managed to name the crucial upload something helpful). So are these of any use (no dimensions, no explanations on what parts are depicted, what measurements are used etc.) I think these are out of scope - Commons isn't a building projects site.
- File:Addddd 844.jpg
- File:Addddd 845.jpg
- File:Addddd 846.jpg
- File:Addddd 847.jpg
- File:Addddd 848.jpg
- File:Addddd 849.jpg
- File:Addddd 854.jpg
- File:Addddd 906.jpg
- File:Addddd 908.jpg
- File:Addddd 850.jpg
- File:Addddd 852.jpg
Final image, what I presume all the previous ones make once combined:
- File:Windtunnel assembly.jpg (not necessarily nominated, might be of some use to someone)
-- Deadstar (msg) 12:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Architects from Argentina with an URAA-problem
[edit]Argentine works, published/created or sourced with (as indicated): see below, licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US +95 years.
- 1971
- 1972
- 1973
- 1974
- 1980
- File:Aslan y Ezcurra.JPG ("a fines de los años '70", ca. 1980)
- 1982
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 1984
File:Eduardo Alejandro Zemborain.jpgper talk: (...) are from my last father and they were taken by me in 1984 (...)"File:Foto-Eddy-300.jpg(duplicate of above)
- 1986
- File:Aslan y Ezcurra.JPG
- File:Baudizzone Diaz Erbin Lestard Traine y Varas.JPG
File:Eduardo Alejandro Zemborain.jpg- File:Estudio STAFF 1973.jpg
File:Foto-Eddy-300.jpg- File:Giancarlo Puppo.jpg
- File:HT-Av. Gral. Paz.jpg
- File:Justo Solsona (1972).jpg
- File:Mario roberto Álvarez 1974.JPG
- File:Miguel Angel Roca (1982).jpg
Gunnex (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martín Giardelli (talk · contribs)
[edit]Argentine works related to the en:Schoklender case, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated: see below), licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US +95 years.
- 1980
- 1981
- File:Captura Pablo Schoklender 1981.jpg
- File:Captura Sergio Schoklender.jpg
- File:Coronado Schoklender.JPG
- File:Captura Pablo Schoklender 1981.jpg
- File:Captura Sergio Schoklender.jpg
- File:Coronado Schoklender.JPG
- File:Pablo Schoklender.jpg
- File:Sergio Schoklender.JPG
Gunnex (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
After today identifying around 15 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from 3 different Panoramio-accounts, blogs etc.) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. Files mostly coming from http://www.panoramio.com/user/2811031 (CC BY-'NC-ND 3.0), a lot of mysteriously edited/watermarked images (e.g.: File:TehsilPirmahalz 9.JPG + File:TehsilPirmahalz 11.jpg), apparently all related to apnapirmahal.com, screenshotted website (e.g. File:Ptbt2009 8.jpg + File:Ptbt2009 1.JPG), etc.
- File:Pirpix 115.jpg
- File:Pirpix 112.jpg
- File:Pirpix 110.jpg
- File:Pirpix 108.jpg
- File:Pirpix 107.jpg
- File:Pirpix 105.jpg
- File:Pirpix 104.jpg
- File:Pirpix 101.jpg
- File:Pirpix 100.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 800.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 9.JPG
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 7.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 5.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 6.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 4.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 2.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 14.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 13.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 12.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 11.jpg
- File:TehsilPirmahalz 10.JPG
- File:Park300.jpg
- File:Park200.jpg
- File:Park100.jpg
- File:Ghousia Chowk.jpg
- File:Railway Station Pir Mahal.jpg
- File:Farid Bakhs Ghousia Degree Science.jpg
- File:Post Office Pir Mahal.jpg
- File:High School1.jpg
- File:Rajana05.jpg
- File:Rajana06.jpg
- File:Rajana04.jpg
- File:Rajana03.jpg
- File:Rajana01.jpg
- File:Sandhilianwali02.jpg
- File:Asadpmln 5.jpg
- File:Asadpmln 4.jpg
- File:Asadpmln 1.jpg
- File:Asadpmln 3.JPG
- File:Asadpmln 2.JPG
- File:Mappirmahal24001600.jpg
- File:Histroyof pirmahalenglish2.JPG
- File:Iqbal Park Pir Mahal.jpg
- File:Histroyof pirmahalenglish1.JPG
- File:Town Committee P.jpg
- File:Railwayss.jpg
- File:FileParkpm2.jpg
- File:Railwaystation.jpg
- File:School12.jpg
- File:Parkpml1.jpg
- File:Parkpml2.jpg
- File:Ptbt2009 8.jpg
- File:Ptbt2009 7.jpg
- File:Ptbt2009 6.jpg
- File:Ptbt2009 4.jpg
- File:Ptbt2009 3.jpg
- File:Ptbt2009 2.jpg
- File:Ptbt2009 1.JPG
- File:Ptbtapa.JPG
- File:MianAsadHafeez.JPG
- File:Tehsilp 4.jpg
- File:Tehsilp 5.jpg
- File:Tehsilp 3.jpg
- File:Tehsilp 1.jpg
- File:Tehsilp 2.jpg
- File:Tehsil.JPG
- File:AC 8.jpg
- File:MapTehsilpirmahal.jpg
- File:Commissioner Faisalabad Tahir Hussain Inaugurated Offices of the Pirmahal Tehsil.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PCP -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Commons is NOT Facebook. Personal unused.
Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 17:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Images which are possible COM:COPYVIOs due to use elsewhere on web with differing licenses.
- File:Reforger 88 newspaper story.jpg found at [17]
- File:1st Infantry Division Patch "The Big Red One".jpg found at [18], marked 2014 Forbes.com LLC™ All Rights Reserved
- File:Reforger 1988 Field.jpg found at [19]
The following photos are of such low size and poor quality that I am nominating them for failing COM:SCOPE
- File:Strawn wagner sign.jpg
- File:Strawn-wagner diamond.jpg
- File:Talaga.jpg
- File:Easter sunrise diamond.JPG
- File:Ericscuba.jpg
The following image is not possible to be "own work" of user, due to age of image.
- File:Bernhard Gopel.jpg (at a minimum incorrectly license, otherwise COM:COPYVIO)
The following images are unused, of a purely personal nature and fail COM:SCOPE
- File:Leon talaska records.jpg
- File:Top secret clearance.jpg
- File:Bernhard mayor 25 years.jpg
- File:Dr-leon-talaska.JPG (this one additionally is incorrectly licensed)
- File:Dr leon talaska degree.JPG
- File:1st Infantry Division Patch "The Big Red One".jpg
- File:Reforger 88 newspaper story.jpg
- File:Reforger 1988 Field.jpg
- File:Age11.jpg
- File:Army-dress-uniform.jpg
- File:Easter sunrise diamond.JPG
- File:Glenn worthington.JPG
- File:Top secret clearance.jpg
- File:Harvey diamond.JPG
- File:Talaga.jpg
- File:Leon talaska records.jpg
- File:Strawn-wagner diamond.jpg
- File:Strawn wagner sign.jpg
- File:Shirley strawn.JPG
- File:Dolphin kiss eric talaska.jpg
- File:Bernhard mayor 25 years.jpg
- File:Bernhard Gopel.jpg
- File:Ericscuba.jpg
- File:Dr-leon-talaska.JPG
- File:Dr leon talaska degree.JPG
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: com:PCP Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Historical photo, stamp and badge. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Pony Express Messenger Badge.jpg
- File:Duck stamp.jpg
- I think this one is {{PD-USGov-Interior}}. Keep -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think this one is {{PD-USGov-Interior}}.
- File:Schmolln horse & buggy.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: 2 deleted and 1 kept as per Robert. --Daphne Lantier 19:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Replaced by another updated image Abhsn (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment What other image? -Pete F (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete Request open by uploader. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 22:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 06:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Copy of https://opc.mfo.de/detail?photo_id=16372 Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection tagged as Copyright:MFO are released under CC-BY-SA-2.0-DE licence, as you can see on their homepage. See also Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection.--Baroc (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Correctly released. James F. (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Photo of a novice priest who died in 1927, and was beatified in the 50s (from what I understand), Antonino Pisano. This is not self made, there is no date that I could find that places this before 1923, no photographer. Unsure what license can apply so we can keep this. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Info This is most likely a {{PD-Italy}}-photo of an Italian priest taken in 1927 (or earlier). Gunnex (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: A PD-Italy tag seems very likely, absent other information. James F. (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Copy of https://opc.mfo.de/detail?photo_id=18430 Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection tagged as Copyright:MFO are released under CC-BY-SA-2.0-DE licence, as you can see on their homepage. See also Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection.--Baroc (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a copy. So what? The picture is released under the appropriate license, which is the only thing that counts. Wiki Commons contains hundreds of pictures from MFO, and actually this is the main source of pictures of famous mathematicans. All of these pictures are released under the appropriate license, and there is no problem whatsoever. Definitely keep the picture. --Mediocrity (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Correctly released. James F. (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palace of the Soviets
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Russia. I assume that this also means that you can't make computer art of buildings which were never constructed, such as w:Palace of the Soviets. Maybe buildings which haven't been constructed aren't even covered by the regular non-commercial FOP provision. Several countries, such as Sweden and the United States, require buildings to be constructed, or else FOP doesn't apply at all.
- File:Palace Of Soviets 1.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 10.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 11.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 12.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 13.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 14.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 2.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 3.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 4.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 5.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 6.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 7.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 8.JPG
- File:Palace Of Soviets 9.JPG
- File:Palace of Soviets.jpg - non-architectural artwork, not undeleted
- File:Postcard 1941 sovietpalace.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - at least the 1941 postcard. Since FOP does not apply to the banknote w:File:PHP 20 Ang Bagong Lipunan series (Reverse).jpg, we will have to assume that FOP does not apply to postcards. There is no FOP in Philippines either. - JohnnyWiki (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- File:PHP 20 Ang Bagong Lipunan series (Reverse).jpg is only on Commons because the building on the banknote (w:Malacañang Palace) is several hundred years old.
- The postcard can't be kept since lack of FOP doesn't allow you to make drawings of copyrighted buildings. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- But then, we must be sure that there was no FOP at the time the postcard was published. If there was FOP, the postcard publication did not violate copyright laws. -- On the other hand, do you mean FOP does not apply to old objects? How old they should be (Malacañang Palace was "drastically remodeled and extensively rebuilt" about 40 years ago, so not very long ago)? - JohnnyWiki (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone can publish drawings of any building by simply obtaining permission from the architect. Maybe the postcard publisher did have permission from the architect? Or maybe the postcard publisher sued the architect for copyright violation?
- Malacañang Palace as shown on File:PHP 20 Ang Bagong Lipunan series (Reverse).jpg (banknote issued in 1973) looks significantly different to File:Malacanang palace view.jpg, which is more recent, so maybe the banknote is from before the modification? Maybe we have a problem with recent pictures of this palace... --Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- But then, we must be sure that there was no FOP at the time the postcard was published. If there was FOP, the postcard publication did not violate copyright laws. -- On the other hand, do you mean FOP does not apply to old objects? How old they should be (Malacañang Palace was "drastically remodeled and extensively rebuilt" about 40 years ago, so not very long ago)? - JohnnyWiki (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: there is no FOP in Russia FASTILY 12:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for modern bridges in Montenegro. Podgorica is in Montenegro. Leoboudv (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Are we sure that bridges have a copyright in Montenegro? They are not eligible in many countries, including the United States. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Montenegro has no FOP but perhaps a more experienced Admin can make a reply on whether this image is copyrighted. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Difficult one. In my personal view this view would not be beyond the threshold of originality. Lymantria (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Then--Leoboudv (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Keep per Lymantria. I withdraw this DR. Regards,- If bridges are eligible for copyright in Montenegro, the light stands over the benches seem like an element with a certain degree of originality. INeverCry 02:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps an Admin with full FOP experience should close this DR. This is a tough case. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The bridge itself is too simple but the elements above the benches are of sufficient unique design to be copyrightable. Would be sad to lose the image of this nice bridge though. --Denniss (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: If the unique light fixtures are cropped out or edited out, I suggest this image may be kept. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: there is no FOP in Montenegro FASTILY 09:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The Apollo Magazine website seems to state that it is NOT free content: http://www.apollo-magazine.com/terms-conditions/ Unless this has changed in the last 2 years, this is not free. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- The file was provided to me by Apollo Magazine. The image was chosen by the editor specifically to avoid any copyright issues, as it does not include any artwork not owned by the publication. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.190.235 (talk • contribs)
- That's perfect - could you perhaps forward on an email with permission from the magazine to the OTRS team (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) so that there is no further misunderstanding over the copyright? You can find more info on COM:OTRS. Thanks very much in advance. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 09:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image is File:Laxmi Upreti1.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is no remarkable difference between these two pictures. So this is out of scope, because realistically it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "no remarkable difference" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion policy says, that low quality/very similar image is redundant. And redundant image may be deleted. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image of the same people in the same position is File:2012. Концерт Арт-Донецк 040.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The other one is better framed. So this can be deleted. It's out of scope, because it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "better framed" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image of the same people in the same position is File:2012. Концерт Арт-Донецк 044.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image of the same person with the same face expression is File:Ananda Raj Khanal1.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Too similar. There is no reason to keep two similar images. So this is out of scope, because realistically it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image (eyes are a bit more open) of the same person is File:TejMayaDumi2.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Too similar. According to scope policy the image is not realistically useful, if it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. Thus we could delete this and keep only the other one. --Kulmalukko (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion policy says, that very similar image is redundant and redundant image may be deleted. (There is no huge difference between these photos.) --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Superseded by almost similar image (the face is less blurred): File:RadhikaChongbang5.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The other image is much clearer on the face. So this worse quality photo is out of scope, because it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "much clearer" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment According to deletion policy very similar image (but not identical) is redundant, which could will be deleted. This image is both low quality and very similar to other picture, there is no reason to keep this. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Similar image (maybe a bit more clear) is File:RadhikaChongbang4.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Too similar, not good quality. This one is out of scope. According to the scope policy the file is no realistically educationally useful, if it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality. --Kulmalukko (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Superseded by almost similar image (maybe better straightened) File:2012. Концерт Арт-Донецк 040.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I hope, that we keep the better straightened image only. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Superseded by similar image (closer view) File:2013. Уголь зрения 050.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The other image is a bit clearer. So this worse quality photo is out of scope, because it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "bit clearer" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Support Tm!--Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image of the same person with same face expression is File:Muna Mukhia1.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Too similar. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment According to deletion policy the image could be considered as redundant, when very similar (not dublicate) image exists. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Superseded by clearer image File:GitaKeshari06.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is blurred. The other one is much clearer. So this worse quality image is out of scope, because it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "blurred" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Since this image is poorly focused and superseded, it is both low quality and redundant. Anyone can observe, that the camera is not focused on the face of the white hair person. The other picture is well focused. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image with closer view is File:GitaKeshari06.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant. Almost similar image with a bit more light is File:Asha Rai1.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The same face expression, same position, same view of the angle. Too similar. According to the scope policy the image is not realistically educationally useful, if it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Superseded by similar image (the face is a bit clearer) File:Asha Rai1.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The other image is similar, but clearer. So this worse image is out of scope, because it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Superseded by clearer image File:Tulsi Diwasa ktm09.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Blurred. The other one is clearly better quality. This worse one is out of scope, because it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "blurred" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Anyone can see, that this is blurred and overexposed. The other image is better. Thus this is both low quality and redundant, and it's possible to delete that according to Deletion Policy. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant, almost identical (same person, same face expression) is File:Tulsi Diwasa ktm04.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Too similar. According to the scope policy the image is not realistically educationally useful, if it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion policy says, that if image is very similar (not dublicate), it's possible to delete it as a redundant. In this case there is no huge difference between these photos. --Kulmalukko (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Redundant, almost identical (same person, same face expression) is File:Tulsi Diwasa ktm04.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly a completly different image and this has the same clearity as the other image and we dont editorialize (read choose) on what images other projects use. Tm (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Too similar. There is no reason to keep two similar images. This is out of scope, because it add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Tm (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This image is redundant, also according to Deletion Policy, because very similar photo exists. --Kulmalukko (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Your misreading the scope in the part that says "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". As i´ve already said Wikimedia Commons doenst editorialize other projects and the "fact" that this image is "too similar" is purely your POV. Also Quoting a policy without making clear what part you are using to support your theory is not very usefull. Where in Deletion policy are basing your assumptions? This are two different and unblurred images, not duplicates. Tm (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason to keep duplicates FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I simply don't believe that the US Army actually photographed a bridge in Germany _in the 1920ies_ (quite unlikely), as claimed here. This image was per haps culled from a US military website; that does not mean it was really made by an Army photographer. Rosenzweig τ 17:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Why not??? The 1920's was only a few years after the Allied victory of WWI. It its logical to me that a standard military survey would be made of any and ALL possibly strategic resources. This would of course include major bridges across what was and is known as Germany's preeminent and defensible western river routes and frontiers. I DE-nominate this picture for deletion!!! The date of the image's origin is unimportant to this article. The image shows the historic state of the bridge in it's pre-war state and as such, is of historical importance. The affiliation of the photographer is unimportant. The caption if indeed incorrect, can be corrected if necessary when it's clearly shown that it is incorrect as it stands. DO NOT DELETE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.65.116 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 17. Feb. 2014 (UTC+02:00)
- "Why not???" is not a proper rationale to keep the file. Either there is some robust evidence that the file indeed is PD-USGov-Mil (or in the PD for another reason), or else it gets deleted per the precautionary principle. Historical value is not enough to keep a file here, it also needs to be free per the Commons project scope. --Rosenzweig τ 17:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PCP FASTILY 09:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyvio - Found at http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/TYLAW24.JPG Dwpaul (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. This is my original work, and the picture at boston.com is a copy of my original work. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to believe you, since the Boston.com article that used the photo seems to have run a full 9 months after you uploaded the image here. Still, I'd like to leave it unlinked from the Ty Law article at Wikipedia until the investigation runs its course. Another WP editor (currently blocked) replaced it with a series of unlicensed AP (and other) photo products, and I want to make sure we do not revert to an image of equally questionable license status. Can you offer any insight into how it came to be used at Boston.com? Dwpaul (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- What a patronizing response. So, you're "inclined to believe" me, huh? Who are you? I have over a thousand pictures of NFL players uploaded on Commons, and many of these have been re-used all over the Internet. Are you going to go after every one? So, sure, feel free to leave it unlinked, delete it, do whatever you want, and enjoy the power. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wasn't intended to be patronizing. I'm the fellow who nominated it for deletion, and was explaining the circumstances that led up to the nomination (which frankly had nothing particularly to do with you, as I was trying to explain). Think perhaps you should work on the Wiki concept of assume good faith. Hope you feel better soon. Thanks. Dwpaul (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wrong again. The person who didn't assume good faith is the one who gratuitously removed the picture from the English Wikipedia article. That is a valid and legal picture, and it should be replaced immediately. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll assume you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies on this question, and point out that your photo was not unlinked by me but by the bozo who tried to pass this and other copyrighted images off as his own work. The issue now is only if and when your photo is again featured in the article. I was attempting to reassure you that I thought it should be, but you really are making me wonder why I bothered. Good day. Dwpaul (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 09:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The preface has been written by Anton Slodnjak (1899–1983) and is not free - should be cropped out. Eleassar (t/p) 19:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
That is page 1? --Sporti (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- OK, done. --Sporti (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: fixed FASTILY 09:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Obs.: High wiki use. The source/license and author information of 4 images used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. 1 file = copyvio via http://www.flickr.com/photos/kayneshots/6781933301/ (01.2012, all rights reserved by "Kerwin Moore"). Uploader notified in 04.2012 - no reaction. Gunnex (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is a chance that uploader Urbanative might be Flickr user "Kerwin Moore" (considering File:Downtownokc.JPG versus http://www.flickr.com/photos/kayneshots/6781934627/, both uploaded on 29.01.2012) but without further input... Gunnex (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Response
Kerwin Moore is me, and I compiled the montage of Oklahoma City with photographs I have taken, which some may appear also on Flickr as individual photos. --129.15.126.243 23:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 09:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Apparent copyright violation. According to the caption contained within the image, this file is derivative of the base map, which in turn is credited to "Metropolitan District Commission GIS". Therefore, while the National Park Service's additions to the base map may be in the public domain consistent with the {{PD-USGov}} tag, the overall work is not. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 22:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Interesting! Here's a link to the Metropolitan District Commission GIS: http://gis.cdm.com/themdc/map.htm. You can look at its GIS map for this area by selecting (at top left): city=Hartford, street=Van Dyke Avenue. It would take someone with considerably more knowledge than me of copyright law to understand the relationship between the National Park Service map and the GIS display. So, I have no view on the matter. Cheers, Daderot (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 09:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Saúl Ubaldini with an URAA-problem
[edit]Argentine works, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated: see below), licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US+95 years.
- 1984
- 1986
Gunnex (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep According to this manifesto published by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation on February 20[20] "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices". Banfield - Amenazas aquí 18:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The paragraph cited express an opinion/statement, but the legal situation is the same. As far as I know, the US Supreme Court did not change the verdict so the copyrights restored are still into force. Furthermore, the same article clear that the WM servers are located in the US. - Fma12 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status, COM:PCP FASTILY 09:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
University of Illinois Dairy Farm Historic District maps
[edit]- File:UofI Dairy Farm Historic District Map.png
- File:UofI Dairy Farm Historic District Map.jpg
- File:UofI Dairy Farm Historic District Map.svg
Apparent copyright violation. According to the information provided with the PNG and JPG files, the source of this map is the National Register of Historic Places nomination form for this historic district and the author is the Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency. (The SVG is just a derivative vectorization of the same, but not fully credited in the file information.) Because the Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency is an agency of the State of Illinois and not the United States federal government, the {{PD-USGov}} tag does not apply and the files are under copyright. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 21:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW, according to the nomination form, author of section 7 (which this drawing is excerpted from) is Karen Lang Kummer from the Preservation and Conservation Association of Champaign County. This does not change anything to this issue, I just wanted to please the millions of connoisseurs who want to know the true author of this masterpiece. By the way, does it really reach the threshold of originality? — Xavier, 00:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm very conservative about applying threshold of originality, generally presuming that a file or work does meet the threshold. But I can see how this map could be subject to some debate on that point. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 03:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't see much point in debating this for hours. The drawing is simple enough and can be recreated quickly without any skill. Online, there is also this (apparently) free map which is much more precise. Let's forget this one. — Xavier, 07:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm very conservative about applying threshold of originality, generally presuming that a file or work does meet the threshold. But I can see how this map could be subject to some debate on that point. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 03:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status FASTILY 09:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Le Corbusier
[edit]Per the Court of Cassation (short summary here): non-free furniture.
- File:Chaise Lounge 1.jpg
- File:Le corbusier, charlotte perriand e pierre jeanneret, chaise longue LC-4, parigi 1928.JPG
- File:Ngv design, le corbusier & charlotte perriand, LC-4 chaise longue, 1928.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- The third photo is tagged as National Gallery of Victoria in Australia, so there doesn't seem to be any need to apply French law under Commons rules. I have no idea whether it would be copyrightable in Australia. The location of the first photo isn't specified. --ghouston (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- The source country of the chaise longue is France, so all images need to be free in France, which they unfortunately aren't. If one of the photos was taken in Australia, then that photograph additionally needs to be free in Australia (which it presumably is). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- The third photo is tagged as National Gallery of Victoria in Australia, so there doesn't seem to be any need to apply French law under Commons rules. I have no idea whether it would be copyrightable in Australia. The location of the first photo isn't specified. --ghouston (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Copyright law is getting from bad to worse. :((( Yann (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)