Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/03/10

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive March 10th, 2014
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The image is freely licensed but the USA does not have Freedom of Panorama for statues or sculptures installed after 1977. Leoboudv (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Im sorry, it was my bad, I didn't know about this law over the monuments and artworks, so go ahead and thank's for the info. Next time I will consult this manual before upload this kind of pictures. --C records (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No FoP  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: clear copyright violation JuTa 19:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

PNG duplicate of our SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 17:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Picture from Getty Flickrworker (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

PNG duplicate of SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 19:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

PNG duplicate of SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 19:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

low quality personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: As per nom russavia (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Español: Soy el autor de esta foto (simulación fotográfica de un animal extinguido, mediante fotomontaje) y solicito su remoción a la brevedad en razón de que está siendo objeto de uso comercial ilegítimo en este sitio: http://www.trangtraitayninh.com/san-pham/vet-ket-ngoai-nhap/ban-vet-macaw-vet-nam-my/ban-vet-glaucus-macaw.html 186.48.208.185 18:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English: I am the author of this file (photographic simulation of an extinct animal, using photomontage) and request its removal as soon as possible because that is the subject of illegitimate commercial use of this site: http://www.trangtraitayninh.com/san-pham/vet-ket-ngoai-nhap/ban-vet-macaw-vet-nam-my/ban-vet-glaucus-macaw.html
Español: Soy el autor de esta foto (simulación fotográfica de un animal extinguido, mediante fotomontaje) y solicito su remoción a la brevedad en razón de que está siendo objeto de uso comercial ilegítimo en este sitio: http://www.trangtraitayninh.com/san-pham/vet-ket-ngoai-nhap/ban-vet-macaw-vet-nam-my/ban-vet-glaucus-macaw.html Soy asimismo el autor de esta misma fot y la he subido también a mi cuanta en Flickr, con atribución no comercial. Rod6807 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English: I am the author of this file (photographic simulation of an extinct animal, using photomontage) and request its removal as soon as possible because that is the subject of illegitimate commercial use of this site: http://www.trangtraitayninh.com/san-pham/vet-ket-ngoai-nhap/ban-vet-macaw-vet-nam-my/ban-vet-glaucus-macaw.html
Español: Soy el autor de esta foto (simulación fotográfica de un animal extinguido, mediante fotomontaje) y solicito su remoción a la brevedad en razón de que está siendo objeto de uso comercial ilegítimo en este sitio: http://www.trangtraitayninh.com/san-pham/vet-ket-ngoai-nhap/ban-vet-macaw-vet-nam-my/ban-vet-glaucus-macaw.html Martín Rodríguez Pontes (Martinangel) (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English: I am the owner and author of the figure and I suggest speedy close or removal of this picture du to copyright violations in the web. 186.8.13.95 09:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, free licenses are irrevocable. If the file is used in other sites, then this is not Commons' problem. I opened the link and got 404 error, so it is not used there anymore. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible licence incompatibility. This image was posted in Flickr two days before beeing posted in Wikipedia: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinangel68/8343758320/ 186.48.233.243 14:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the first publication was under copyright, then the uploader decided to publish under a Creative Commons license. That is possible. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kept: Per previous close. Natuur12 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused same chemical and format as File:Chloramine T.svg but has oddly faceted curves of text. DMacks (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a duplicate of File:Old Mill Bridge Toronto.jpg Leoboudv (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Billinghurst Revicomplaint? 08:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low quality personal photo, out of scope, Commons not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Denniss Revicomplaint? 08:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low quality personal photo, out of scope, Commons not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Denniss Revicomplaint? 08:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low quality personal photo, out of scope, Commons not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Denniss Revicomplaint? 08:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low quality personal photo, out of scope, Commons not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Denniss Revicomplaint? 08:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: by Fastily Revicomplaint? 08:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: by Fastily Revicomplaint? 08:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused user portrait 24.134.91.232 14:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: personal and also watermarked. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low quality selfie, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low quality selfie, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused private image, out of scope (used only for vandalism on w:DJ ANKEAT) Indeedous (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

likely to be a copyrighted publicity photo - this image has been used in online news stories for the last year or so JMiall (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This photo is not only used in online news stories, but it dates back to 2010 (I want to say it's a promotional image for Doki Doki Morning or Iine, as it's definitely not for anything later than those). Highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: The claim of own authorship is not plausible. Sandstein (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused user portrait 24.134.91.232 16:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless without a description 24.134.91.232 13:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Not a reason to delete. Flickrworker (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Useless without a description. The description is "presentation at the velodrome of chile" and that's useless. Only useful for illustrating the concept "human being" and we have plenty of those, and if we're going to accept photos on that basis we should accept every facebook selfie. We have to keep taking out the garbage, people. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

image outside project scope DS (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

useless without a description 24.134.91.232 13:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Not a reason to delete. Flickrworker (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Useless without a description. The description is "Thailand: Maxxy" and that's useless. Only useful for illustrating the concept "group of human beings" and we have plenty of those, and if we're going to accept photos on that basis we should accept every facebook selfie. We oughtn't keep stuff like this as it's just clutter, degrades the database, and is just that much more cruft for users to sort through. Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Only useful for illustrating the concept "human being" and we have plenty of those, and if we're going to accept photos on that basis we should accept every facebook selfie. We have to keep taking out the garbage, people. Herostratus Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

useless without a description 24.134.91.232 13:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Not a reason to delete. Flickrworker (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete On the one hand, it's tiny any undescribed, so of little use. On the other hand, it shows identifiable young children. The picture was taken inside a school and you generally need permission for a shot like this, so let's see an OTRS ticket indicating that such permission was obtained. That'd be the minumum; young children are given especial protection of identity for safety and other reasons, so probably we should also have proof of permission from the guardian of each child proving that they were agreeable to releasing this picture into the wild. Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: no description and discussion points by Herostratus. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not free map / carte non libre kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 08:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks to cancel this photo ! [[TONIODELBARRIO6464])


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope, vandalism on w:George_Ovenden Indeedous (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Internet type meme, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: out of scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image taken from website with copyright notification. Contains a logo, hence probably not eligible for PD-text. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: image from copyrighted webpage. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Time cover is from May 19, 1941. It's copyright (B498534) was renewed in 1968 and it's copyright renewal number is R448104. It will be in the public domain on January 1, 2037. —RP88 14:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I hadn't seen that. I thank you for correcting my error.

The source page on Wikia states that the image is from a non-free software title (the Star Wars: Empire at War: Forces of Corruption map editor.) Gazebo (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer desired. New file: Kit_shorts_adidasnavy Luxusfrosch (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer desired. New file: Kit_shorts_adidasnavy Luxusfrosch (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer desired. New file: Kit_shorts_adidasonnavy Luxusfrosch (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo of a business card, looks like an attempt at advertising, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope, not a photo album Gbawden (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

duplicate of File:MichaelHoganJune2011.jpg Lady Lotus (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer desired. New file: Kit_shorts_adidasonnavy Luxusfrosch (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attempt at advertising, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Time cover is from May 22, 1939. It's copyright (B416599) was renewed in 1966 and it's copyright renewal number is R387549. It will be in the public domain on January 1, 2035. —RP88 14:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal profile photo of the uploader. —Bill william comptonTalk 16:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO: Image at source in New York Times, clearly marked "Photography © John Bigelow Taylor". Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added name of phptographer Renevs (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete The copyright holder (John Bigelow Taylor) is the only one who can upload this image without an OTRS.

Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 19:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Time cover is from January 7, 1957. It's copyright (B00000629119) was renewed in 1985 and it's copyright renewal number is RE0000263384. It will be in the public domain on January 1, 2053. It was previously deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hungarian.jpg. —RP88 14:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you your information and sorry about it. You can delete it. -- ato (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Time cover is from June 2, 1958. It's copyright (B00000714794) was renewed in 1986 and it's copyright renewal number is RE0000303808. It will be in the public domain on January 1, 2054. —RP88 14:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matthew Raymond claims copyright on it in this email. I'm sure he's wrong, but it was suggested that I request it be deleted anyway. SamB (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on the svg file. One could demonstrate it's too simple by opening inkscape, writing "?" and converting it from text to path. Depending on the curve parameter I provide, my question mark can end up identical to this one without much effort. --CyberXRef 22:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source provided by uploader is a website. There is no corroborating documentation that this is the Dai-Gohonzon. The authenticity of the image is disputed by Nichiren Shoshu members who have seen it shortly after viewing the Dai-Gohonzon in Japan. Additionally, Nichiren Shoshu prohibits photography of all its Gohonzon. The claim that permission was granted once in 1910 has not been proved. Scandiescot (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) According to all best available evidence on the matter, the photo was taken in 1910 at Taiseki-ji, and as such it is now in the public domain -- meaning that it can be hosted on WP Commons. (2) The personal incredulity of one editor is not sufficient to warrant deletion from Wikimedia Commons. (3) This user has previously attempted to censor Wikipedia articles by removing thumbnails of this image, claiming that they are heretical and banned by the Nichiren Shoshu organization -- Wikipedia, and I assume Wikimedia as a whole, is not a member of such a religion. (4) For the aforementioned reasons, the image should certainly be kept on the Commons. Tengu800 (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would advise administrators to consider the past history of Nichiren-shu and Nichiren-shoshu edit wars and religiously-motivated sectarianism on Wikipedia. Articles for these subjects are often in a state of turmoil, and it would be bad precedent to allow disruptive editing, warlording, and censorship to make its way onto Wikimedia Commons. Tengu800 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly support Tengu800. I find the disruptive style of editing on named articles disturbing same also occurred in the article on Soka Gakkai. Seems adherents of both groups invent new Wikipedia rules. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted several times on Talk:Nichiren Shōshū, this image does not conform with WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT, and WP:OR. There is no credible evidence that the image actually is the Dai-Gohonzon. Vague reference to "all best available evidence on the matter" (Which specific evidence?), "a photo taken in 1910", a single non-official webpage as a source, and Catflap08's claims of "new Wikipedia rules" do not meet the standards on the aforementioned WP: pages. The rest of Tengu800's and Catflap08's comments are irrelevant to whether this image conforms to those standards. Scandiescot (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source provided by uploader is a website. There is no corroborating documentation that this is the Dai-Gohonzon. The authenticity of the image is disputed by Nichiren Shoshu members who have seen it shortly after viewing the Dai-Gohonzon in Japan. Additionally, Nichiren Shoshu prohibits photography of all its Gohonzon. The claim that permission was granted once in 1910 has not been proved.

Relevant links: Image does not meet Wikipedia standards for burden of identifying a reliable source, which lies with the editor who adds or restores material and reliable source. The only source is a self-published website, which does not have proper citation for verification. Scandiescot (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Image is described as the "Dai-Gohonzon" on both the source website and several others. The book from which it came was published three years after the photo was taken in 1910. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails FOP in the UK as it is a temporary piece of art and cannot be considered to be de minimis in these images.

Flickrworker (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: per above McZusatz (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ElvisQaili

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

self promotion Fixertool (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 02:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Schandeler (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Outside of COM:SCOPE: commons is not facebook. Personal files of user without other useful contribution.

Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 03:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyrighted models and costumes (see COM:Cosplay) shown.

Gazebo (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the File:The Prop Store of London - LA - camera used to film Return of the Jedi and Blue Harvest hat (6301471586).jpg image (see also File:The Prop Store of London - LA - Blue Harvest hat (6301471646).jpg), if the design on the hat is copyrighted, it might be possible to crop the photo to show only the camera (which, from the image description, is a utilitarian object and not a prop.) --Gazebo (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the following list, photographs contain "ordinary" objects that were not originally created for cinema or television. Is it acceptable ?
Prométhée33 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 02:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Alex.shamji.60 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible copyvios or out of project scope images.

Jespinos (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 02:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The movie sets, models, and costumes (see COM:Cosplay) shown are likely copyrighted; FOP in the US does not cover artwork.

Gazebo (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 02:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by FahimeJavdan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible copyvios or out of scope.

Jespinos (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 02:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by BCA-2005 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons is not Facebook.

Jespinos (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 02:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyrighted models, artwork, and costumes (see COM:Cosplay) shown; it is not clear that the exhibition is permanent (FOP in Brazil only covers permanent installations.)

Gazebo (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 02:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-free rendering. Eleassar (t/p) 00:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-free rendering. Eleassar (t/p) 00:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 00:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Novo dvorišče med Frankopansko in Malgajevo (4575932380).jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 00:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-free rendering. Eleassar (t/p) 00:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 00:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small size, and lack of metadata make this image of a Polish journalist created with Quicktime software unlikely to be user's own work, but a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original image was taken in 1979, only 35 years ago and would not be out of copyright yet. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very well known photo. It can be seen on many sites like for example [1]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Probable COM:COPYVIO, small size, low rezz, no metadata image not found at source given which is marked "© 2013 Xinhua, english.news.cn. All rights reserved." Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Probable COM:COPYVIO, small size, low rezz, no metadata image not found at source given which is marked "© 2013 Xinhua, english.news.cn. All rights reserved." Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image found at source marked "Bruno Baumann" photographer, probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was uploaded from Der Spiegel. I added name form photographer. Renevs (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: com:L Natuur12 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small size, low resolution image not found at source which is marked " © All Rights Reserved,Chinatravel.com® is a registered trademark", probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image found on source website, however, it's marked "© All Rights Reserved,Chinatravel.com® is a registered trademark", probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO, Image found at source, marked "Copyright © Tibet Daily & China Tibet News Web All rights reserved Reproduction in whole or in part without permissions prohibited" Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO, Image found at source, marked "Copyright © Tibet Daily & China Tibet News Web All rights reserved Reproduction in whole or in part without permissions prohibited" Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO, Image found at source, marked "Copyright (c) 2010 Digital Preservation Society. All Rights Reserved." Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO, Image found at source, marked "Copyright (c) 2010 Digital Preservation Society. All Rights Reserved." Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO, Image found at source, marked "Copyright (c) 2010 Digital Preservation Society. All Rights Reserved." Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

From site, unclear copyright status, image is credited "The Lamp that Illuminates the Liberation upon Hearing in the Bardo State: The Oral Tradition Tibetan: sNyan brgyud bar do thos grol gsal sgron chen mo Author: Dam pa rang grol ye shes rgyal mtshan (b.1149) In Zhi khro sgrub skor glegs bam gyi dbu�i rdul len thar lam �dren byed. Delhi, c.1970.I-Tib-761; 76-924678. " Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can not understand why these remarks would have to lead to deletion. The reason provided is insufficient for deletion. Renevs (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Commons:Licensing Natuur12 (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image not found at source given, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the source Renevs (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Source credits photos to "Photos courtesy of New Kadampa Tradition" without giving any form of license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image at source, but photograph not user's own work. No indication of permissions for image at source, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See comments Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelliot chinois 4646.jpg, posted 20:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Renevs (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your comments on that page, I find that many if not most of the images nominated for deletion have come from sites clearly labeled copyright. I think it would be good to go back and read COM:L for a fuller understanding of what can and cannot be uploaded to Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image was published four days previously at source given but with no indication of license. Image is not user's own work, likely COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I quote source. ¨¨ The image at the top is from a 19th-century painting: see here.¨ The ´ here´ is the Himalayan Art Resources see [2]. I quote from that source.

¨Himalayan Art Resources provides images of Himalayan and Tibetan style art for viewing from museum and private collections around the world, as an educational resource.¨ Renevs (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete From same source, following the link to Copyright:
Materials and Content: Text and images made available on the Himalayan Art Website, created to provide an educational resource to the public, are the property of the Shelley & Donald Rubin Foundation, unless otherwise noted, and are protected by copyright. The reproduction, redistribution and/or exploitation of any materials and/or content (data, text, images, marks or logos) for personal or commercial gain is not permitted. Provided the source is cited, personal, educational and non-commercial use (as defined by fair use in US copyright law) is permitted.
Commons cannot guarantee that future use would fit that license (specifically "non-commercial use") and thus the item is protected by copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick chat with Yann we agreed that this is most likely pd-art. Natuur12 (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image sourced to "AFP/Getty Images" at source marked (c). Probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very wellknown photo and can be seen on may sites, like for example [3]. [4], [5] Renevs (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Being a well-known photo does not waive the rights of the image creator. The image was taken in 1954, only 60 years ago. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is 56 years old, no indication of original source found on blogspot.com, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very well known photo and can be found on many sites. Like for example [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] Renevs (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Being a well-known photo does not waive the rights of the image creator. The image was taken in 1954, only 60 years ago. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image found at source but no indication of where they got it from or permission status. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quote source. ¨¨ 2. Chögyal Phagpa, 18th century painting. Rubin Collection, HimalayanArt.com.¨¨Renevs (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Following the link you provided and their statement goes to this page, clearly marked Copyright © 2014 Shelley and Donald Rubin Foundation. Photographed Image Copyright © 2004 Rubin Museum of Art. Clearly a COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

From 1980 written e-book from source given on page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Book is only 34 years old, status is unclear, possible COM:COPYVIO. Sorry about splitting the nomination in half, I accidentally hit enter too soon. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is from blog given but without indication of source or status, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quote source ¨ 2. Details from the Guolimu coffin boards from Luo Shiping 2006.¨ See for other comments Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelliot chinois 4646.jpg,posted 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Renevs (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I agree with you that the [10] reads, "2. Details from the Guolimu coffin boards from Luo Shiping 2006.¨", however, that shows that the copyright holder is then Luo Shiping, dated 2006. I see your other comments on your other images. I think you might wish to reread [{COM:L]] to understand what is and what is not copyright. Pages that are clearly marked "copyright" or which attribute images to photographers and other sources are not "fair game" for just taking images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image found at source with no indication of where that webpage got it, who created it, or its status. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page that makes clear how the site got the picture [11] Renevs (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Your source clearly reads © 2014 The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO: Violates license on page from which it was taken (and sourced). "© Copyright 2003 – Victor & Victoria Trimondi The contents of this page are free for personal and non-commercial use, provided this copyright notice is kept intact. All further rights, including the rights of publication in any form, have to be obtained by written permission from the authors." Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploader needs to provide source showing this photograph was published in the U.S. prior to January 1, 1923. At present the source is linked to a blog which doesn't provide that information. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO: Image is from sourced page which is marked "© 2000–2013 The Metropolitan Museum of Art." Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image not at website given as source which "404's". Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

In upload source, the credit for photographs is given to "Photos from Jamyang Norbu" not "unknown." Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now credited Jamyang Norbu for the photo. This is a very wellknown photo and it can be seen on very many sites. Renevs (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Jamyang Norbu is a living person, you cannot give away his copyright to images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image not at source given. To use under license provided, uploader must provide the source of the first publication of image and who created it or held its copyright. Neither of those have been fulfilled, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the source and credited Jamyang Norbu for the photo. This is a very wellknown photo and it can be seen on very many sites. Renevs (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Jamyang Norbu is a living person, you cannot give away his copyright to images.

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of proper license, image is marked from a collection. Source is facebook. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of license or ownership on source site given [12], possible COM:COPYVIO without original date of publication and copyright holder. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of license or ownership on source site given [13], possible COM:COPYVIO without original date of publication and copyright holder. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no indication that Sam van Schak holds copyright to this page from a newspaper. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 1.0 license given here doesn't match the license at the source website which reads "Materials and Content: Text and images made available on the Himalayan Art Website, created to provide an educational resource to the public, are the property of the Shelley & Donald Rubin Foundation, unless otherwise noted, and are protected by copyright. The reproduction, redistribution and/or exploitation of any materials and/or content (data, text, images, marks or logos) for personal or commercial gain is not permitted. Provided the source is cited, personal, educational and non-commercial use (as defined by fair use in US copyright law) is permitted.", possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image not at source provided, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source is corrrect now. Source is an organisation Education Asian Art Renevs (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Source is labeled "© 2012 Asian Art Museum". Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is from "The Arts of Tibetan Painting Recent Research on Manuscripts, Murals and Thangkas of Tibet, the Himalayas and Mongolia (11th -19th century) PIATS 2010: Proceedings of the Twelfth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies Vancouver, 2010." at [14], nothing on that site clearly gives a 1.0 license for this image. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source page says downloads are free to users, does not give open license, page is marked " © 2011 Tsem Tulku Rinpoche. All Rights Reserved". Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO, image from [15] here, labeled Copyright ©2014 FPMT Inc. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO. Images were microfilmed forty five years ago in 1969 by Dieter Schuh. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO: Image is from [16] here, labeled " © The Pitt Rivers Museum". Uploader does not provide proof of publication as required by license used. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is from 1983 publication as stated on sourc here, COM:COPYVIO Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

On source here, image is credited to page 310 of a book. Other book credited with images on same page was published in the 1980s. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image not found at source given. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected website adress. Source is Himalayan Art Resources. I quote from their site ¨Himalayan Art Resources. provides images of Himalayan and Tibetan style art for viewing from museum and private collections around the world, as an educational resource.¨ Renevs (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Source copyright page reads "Materials and Content: Text and images made available on the Himalayan Art Website, created to provide an educational resource to the public, are the property of the Shelley & Donald Rubin Foundation, unless otherwise noted, and are protected by copyright. The reproduction, redistribution and/or exploitation of any materials and/or content (data, text, images, marks or logos) for personal or commercial gain is not permitted. Provided the source is cited, personal, educational and non-commercial use (as defined by fair use in US copyright law) is permitted. All parties using, printing or downloading the materials and/or content of the Himalayan Art website in any manner, represent and warrant (1) that they understand and will observe the limitations on the use of the materials and/or content; and (2) that they will not infringe or violate the rights of any other party." Commons cannot guarantee non-commercial use of images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

At source given image is credited to book; other images in same essay credited to 1980s book, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of copyright release on source website. No proof that this image was created over 100 years ago, it's a color print, that's unlikely. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See for comments Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelliot chinois 4646.jpg,posted 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I also quote source Image

Moheyan in the Rinpung (Rin spungs) ritual dance © 2006 by Mona Schrempf, IATS, and THDL.

THDL stands for The Tibetan and Himalayan Library (THL) . I Quote from their website [17] ¨THL is a publisher of websites, information services, and networking facilities relating to the Tibetan plateau and southern Himalayan regions. .......THL’s knowledge and technology are provided free of charge, and are built collaboratively by hundreds of people across the world who share this vision. We also have sister initiatives built by and for the communities in this region – the Tibetan Digital Library and the Bhutan National Digital Library. Explore our websites and services, and consider joining us as active participants.¨ Renevs (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete At source, the image is marked © 2006 by Mona Schrempf, IATS, and THDL. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unclear copyrightstatus, no clear evidence that this file is pd so under com:PCP we simply cannot hoste it. Natuur12 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outside of COM:SCOPE: commons is not facebook. Personal file of user without other useful contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would need an OTRS confirmation. Aga (d) 07:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

cette photo n'est pas Alex Talamba mais Eric Borg... (moi-même) 82.224.186.140 08:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J'avais inversé les deux noms. C'est corrigé.--Thesupermat (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Fixed Natuur12 (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Information board is 2 d and in copyright to someone, almost certainly not the photographer WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:DW of the screen image. LGA talkedits 08:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment - Photographer and uploader here. I was trying to find a use case in Commons:Image_casebook for some guidance, although I can't seem to find anything directly relevant. That, and the fact that the photo is blurry, is causing me to have little interest in defending this image. I'm happy to crop it, or I'm cool with deletion. As background information to anyone else reviewing this (and not necessarily as arguments against deletion), the image was captured on public property in the United States where a local network TV journalist was waiting to go live with a story, and the monitor (owned by the TV station) was sitting there showing the live broadcast at the time. Thanks for raising the issue, LGA. Tony Webster (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: com:DW Natuur12 (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in the US so this is a COM:DW LGA talkedits 08:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails German FOP as not permanent. Temporary advert on a temporary bridge. LGA talkedits 08:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyrighted promo picture of a TV series (Huzur Sokağı). Rapsar (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A promo picture of a play. Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No evidence of permission Natuur12 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like a museum plaque. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File needs an OTRS ticket 24.134.91.232 13:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

missing permission - possible false claim of ownership per http://lukewilliamsgossip.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/duff_1.jpg Lady Lotus (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Russia Flickrworker (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the civil code of the Russian Federation: "Статья 1276. Свободное использование произведения, постоянно находящегося в месте, открытом для свободного посещения. Допускается без согласия автора или иного правообладателя и без выплаты вознаграждения воспроизведение, сообщение в эфир или по кабелю фотографического произведения, произведения архитектуры или изобразительного искусства, которые постоянно находятся в месте, открытом для свободного посещения, за исключением случаев, когда изображение произведения таким способом является основным объектом этого воспроизведения, сообщения в эфир или по кабелю либо когда изображение произведения используется в коммерческих целях". What work of architecture is the main object of this image? What rights of the author of architecture here are violated?--Sergei Kazantsev (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept, probably DM and the law changes at october this year. So buildings are okey after that date Natuur12 (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fehlanlage. Sollte eine Kategorie werden Machahn (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

useless without a description 24.134.91.232 16:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: No consensus for deletion, scope based Natuur12 (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This doesn't look at all like an "own work" as claimed, but rather like it was scanned from some printed source - see the moiré pattern. Rosenzweig τ 17:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused user portrait 24.134.91.232 17:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused user portrait 24.134.91.232 17:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

useless image Saqib (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uploader requested Natuur12 (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

useless image Saqib (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uploader requested Natuur12 (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This ca. 1930ies French postcard is claimed to be "Anonymous-EU", but even a publisher is named, so I doubt it is truly anonymous in a legal sense. At least I don't see any documented research about the author. It's more likely that the uploader simply didn't bother to do this research. The postcard is too recent to assume that it is in the PD anyway, because its author could well have lived beyound 1943. Unless some convincing evidence is presented that the postcard is truly anonymous, it should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Poor quality, hand drawn structure. Unused. File:Cardiolipin.svg is a suitable alternative. Ed (Edgar181) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per COM:FOP#Estonia: non-free architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 19:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: deleted but not by me Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Ellin Beltz as no license. Well, there is a CC license but this is unlikely own work by the uploader as stated. JuTa 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Magog the Ogre as no license. Well, there is a CC license, but this is unlikely own work by the uploader as stated. JuTa 19:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto: File:Chadwick parla sobre els interesos de rutherford en la investigacio.ogg. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too small, too redacted, otherwise uninteresting photo. -- Tuválkin 19:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Affects also File:Kitty-on-fridge.png, which is the same image, but without the border. -- Tuválkin 20:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No description given. Source field and author field don't match. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: And small size, no exif Natuur12 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear copyright status. Uploaded on Flickr on 03.02.2014 by 1-upload-Flickr user "Journal TheNewWorld", on same day uploaded by UG-586 at Commons but previously published via (example) https://www.facebook.com/Alena.Joukova/photos/a.134165803316715.27045.134165466650082/134165806650048/?type=1&theater (2011, official Facebook). Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This picture belongs to Alena Joukova, she is an editor of the The New World literary magazine. She placed the photo into Flickr with the indicated there rights. --UG-586 (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, sources at Facebook and Flickr were updated, establishing a connection. For my part I have no more objections =  Keep. Gunnex (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn Natuur12 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear copyright status. Uploaded by UG-586 on 12.2012 but cropped from a photo which appears to be previously published in 2011 via http://www.lopushnoy.ru/%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5-%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE/%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C/#more-677 (2011, Копирайт © 2014) = (only small res available: http://www.lopushnoy.ru/wp-content/uploads/1-035.jpg = 404) http://www.lopushnoy.ru/wp-content/uploads/1-035-200x300.jpg. lopushnoy.ru seems to be the official site of the portrayed person. Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We took this picture during a concert... actually, it was shared later with no license in the Internet. I cropped it in order to place here. Lopushnoy asked to do this. --UG-586 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Please send evidence of permission to com:OTRS and they will restore the file for you Natuur12 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. OTRS-permission. Natuur12 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

self-promotion Fixertool (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope Natuur12 (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a work of 20minutos.es, not licensable via {{Cc-by-2.5}} and copyrighted by "Gomez", considering http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/258107/0/escritor/libro/marbella/ (11.07.2007) = http://www.20minutos.es/imagen/651916. Gunnex (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

picture of unimportant people Boseritwik (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

self promotion Boseritwik (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

self promotion Boseritwik (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear copyright status. Uploader Borjacs sound similar to portrayed writer Borja Castellano but exif reveals "J.Luis Ortiz & Demian Ortiz" as author(s), copyrighted by "Imagentecnia SL". Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

ununsed private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, although it doesn't look bad, it's unfortunately out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Deleted but not by me Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

seems to be a mistake, no encyclopedic value, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently Flickr-washed image that probably wasn't Flickr user's to freely license in first place. (Doesn't appear to fall within dates where non-copyrighted US ads can be used, and no indication of other rationale for it being free). Ubcule (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused image, self-promotion, bad quality Indeedous (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine any other copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine any other copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine any other copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine any other copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine any other copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine any other copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible Flickr-washed image that wasn't that user's to license under those terms, regardless of what they claim. Insufficient background information to determine any other copyright (or out-of-copyright) status. Ubcule (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license. The uploader added a {{PD-self}} license later, but this is not own work by the uploader. JuTa 23:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No evidence that this file is free Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO, Image found at source, marked "Academia © 2014 " Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the source to the original site where it came from. JSTOR. Quote from that source ¨" 1. JSTOR is a not-for-profit, founded to help academic libraries and publishers. 2. JSTOR is not a publisher, and we do not ask for exclusive rights to the content on the platform.¨ Renevs (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Not asking for exclusive rights is very different from owning the copyright and granting a free license to it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:COPYVIO, Image found at source, marked "Academia © 2014 " Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the source to the original site where it came from. JSTOR. Quote from that source ¨" 1. JSTOR is a not-for-profit, founded to help academic libraries and publishers. 2. JSTOR is not a publisher, and we do not ask for exclusive rights to the content on the platform.¨ Renevs (talk)


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image not at source given. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected adress of source Renevs (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Source here is clearly marked © Trustees of the British Museum. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: for 3D object one needs own or free photo Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is not entirely free because the poster within the photograph is copyrighted. Dream out loud (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Crop the image to show only the faces and the top (text part) of the poster. As it stands, the poster cannot be considered de minimis. LX (talk, contribs) 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept, cropped as suggested by LX. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is not entirely free because the poster within the photograph is copyrighted and does not satisfy de minimis. Previous deletion request was closed as a "keep" as image should be cropped, however a derivitave image with a cropped version has since been uploaded (File:Gale Ann Hurd and James Cameron cropped.jpg). Dream out loud (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ОСТАВИТЬ! Абсурдная номинация. В таком виде плакат фильма «Чужие» не представляет никакой художественной ценности и не нарушает ни каких прав кинокомпании! --Alexey2244 (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete per previous decision, and please delete the original revision this time. User:Towpilot/User:Alexey2244, if you want to appeal the decision to delete, the correct place to do that is Commons:Undeletion requests. Unilaterally restoring previously deleted content and edit warring are both grounds for blocking. LX (talk, contribs) 11:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Придётся мне обращаться к администраторам проекта, на некоторых редакторов надо ставить полный блок., флуда много ни о чём.--Alexey2244 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept There can be no question that the original image infringes on the copyright of the poster -- the claim that it does not is silly. The further claim that the poster has no artistic value is also silly -- copyright does not require artistic value, only originality.

Since this file is widely used, I have deleted all of the versions that showed the full image and kept only the cropped image. I have also deleted File:Gale Ann Hurd and James Cameron cropped.jpg, as it is no longer in use anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Big screen copyrighted image Flickrworker (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I´m the owner of the picture. Why is the image copyrighted? I´ve done it with my own camerain Frankfurt. The display is a temporaly created showcase for this event. So why should this be copyrighted??? Nice to hear from you... --DonPedro71 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a screen and therefore broadcasting an image which is presumably copyrighted. Also it is considered as art and most temporary art is not allowed under freedom of panorama (I haven't looked at Germany for this). So therefore you hold the copyright for the picture but not for the imagery on screen and if we removed that you don't have a picture left. Flickrworker (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was not quite clear for me. But if you say, the image on the screen is copyrightet, then i have no chance to get a permission, cause who is the copyright-holder? The broadcast company in the Franfurt Arena, the managing association (DTB)?, the ITF as worldwide copyright holder of the competition? So, i think there is no chance to get a permission from the copyright holder of the picture! But in my opinion, it is not art as the law in Germany constats. Further there is a not sufficient grade of work to be under the right of copyright. But you are right, that the sign of the "Davis Cup by BNP Paribas" is a trademark. So the picture has here to be deleted. Thanks for your advice. --DonPedro71 (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: They copyrightholder can send his consent to com:OTRS Natuur12 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of COM:SCOPE, personal shot, not even used on his userpage. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Multiple nominations, has been deleted, and has been restored. Has been used on an enWP article which is grounds for keeping, and not for Commons to determine that usage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of COM:SCOPE, personal shot - even since it was kept before does not change that it's a selfie without educational value. Achim Raschka (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



deleted: not in use anymore. Natuur12 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing to substantiate the license-no link for where the photo is from. We hope (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is small and appears to have been taken from somewhere on the internet. I found 2 copies:

Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no evidence that the image used on the poster, and from which this image is allegedly derived, is free of copyright. Sitush (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Previously published: google images" Stefan4 (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


deleted: Same file as the previous nom. Natuur12 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Schatrath (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope, unused personal images.

Jespinos (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Fans of Evis feroni (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope, unused personal images.

Jespinos (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture.

Eleassar (t/p) 21:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by RizmanStory (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope.

Jespinos (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Panaramus (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ranganzaman (talk · contribs)

[edit]

some artwork, copyright unclear, second picture collection with small pictures

Motopark (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Sadyyy1985 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Low resolutions and no valid EXIF. The images are likely not own work.

Jespinos (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Osvaldo Carbuccia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

There is no evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of the images.

Jespinos (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no Freedom of panorama in Russia Evil Russian (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: indeed, no FoP for monuments Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Le Sabre (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No camera data or source information given for these images. User is blocked. Possible COM:COPYVIOs. Remaining uploads are .ogg files.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bobbie87 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Apparently fake images with copyright or scope issues.

Jespinos (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Miguelmerida (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused private images, self-promotion, out of scope

Indeedous (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by FRANDOG (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Trademark or commercial logos, without any educational or encyclopedic use. Maybe even protected by copyrights. —Frei sein (Talk to me!) 07:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Syedrabiahmed (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope, unused personal images.

Jespinos (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Yovani Velasquez (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope, unused personal images.

Jespinos (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Smksameersmk (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused user portraits

24.134.91.232 16:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a stamp printed in the UAE and no information about publication date has been provided. According to the UAE copyright law it might be still protected. AMERICOPHILE 17:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avicenna.jpg

While image is identified as being from an old book, the source given is labeled "Copyright © Berfrois.com". Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: PD-Art. Yann (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no indication at the blog to which this is sourced of where it came from and/or its status. Possible COM:COPYVIO as no photographer information for ancient text is provided. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See comments Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelliot chinois 4646.jpg, posted 20:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Renevs (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I see the discussion on the other page, please see COM:L to understand why uploading copyright images is not allowed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-Art. Yann (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Location not identifiable, no educational value. darkweasel94 11:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

After clicking through to the source, I'm very confused about the license. Can anyone identify where in the source there is confirmation regarding "Only photographs used by this site from Bollywood Hungama parties/events that are exclusively created by their own photographers with the explicit exception of images from non-Indian events, film sets, screenshots, wallpapers, vacation pictures, or promotional posters and similar exceptions." There seems to be no note of the photographer nor any indication regarding which parties/event this is. Sitush (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The confirmation you quoted above is give through an OTRS ticket linked in the license template. We don't actually need a not about the photographer. The party being referred to here is "Press conference of 'Department'"; thats on top of the image and also in the categories below. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Department" a film? Who hosted the press conference? If it wasn't Bollywood Hungama then the permission fails (perhsaps unless it falls into the highly ambiguous "explicit exception"). Is the OTRS ticket specific to the image or just a general Bollywood Hungama ticket, and if the latter then how do we know it was taken by one of their photographers? This is the sort of stuff that was confusing me and I think that the permission has more holes in it than a teabag. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. w:en:Department (film). It doesn't matter who hosted it. As the public present there were invited and allowed to photograph there, the rights are owned by the photographer or the people who paid the photographer. The Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama was created in 2008 when the OTRS was received and the film was released in 2012; so no, the OTRS is not for specific this image. They mention in their OTRS that the images they publish in their "parties/events" sections are taken by their photographers and hence those ones are released under this license. The website has many other images, film's posters, trailers, their own logo, etc. which are not covered here. (Holes in teabag? Its porous, or you can say mesh-like. But they aren't called holes. Isn't it?) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we call them holes over here, or perforations ;) Anyway, it now seems that there is another issue because of the ambiguity of "created by their own photographers" - is the subject of "their" the taker of the photograph or staff of Bollywood Hungama. I don't see how we can trust BH to vet this content if it comes from third parties but they do not even name those parties. I'll say it again: that license notice is a complete waste of space and maybe some day I'll raise a meta discussion about it. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: If the ticket is wrong please complain to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Yann (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following links in source provided leads here which is labeled " © British Library", possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See comments Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelliot chinois 4646.jpg, posted 20:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Renevs (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Image source is labeled " © British Library". Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again and I now quote the site of earlytibet again. See [18] ¨Except where noted otherwise, all images on this site are from the IDP website and are © The British Library or the Bibliothèque nationale de France.¨ Renevs (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. 3D object, so PD-Art doesn't apply. Yann (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

much blurry, out of scope, no EV Slick (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Sorry for the wrong upload; I already deleted this, but was again including in the upload wizard by my mistake. Hence, I searched for a better version. Senator Bong Revilla is a high profile politician and it is very rare that he is photographed, hence the rarest photo of Bong Revilla. In fact his Wikipedia article has no photo yet due to this problem of Original photography. I was able to capture his close photo because I was in the Church wedding, by serendipity. No objection to the deletion, however. Cheers.--Judgefloro (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep New image uploaded is not blurry, and we don't seem to have many images of this clearly notable person. Storkk (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(well, outside this event anyway.... there are a bunch of him at this event - this may not be the best) Storkk (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Storkk. Yann (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following links in source provided leads here which is labeled " © British Library", possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See for comments Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelliot chinois 4646.jpg,posted 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Renevs (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Source is labeled "© British Library". Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again and I now quote the site of earlytibet again. See [19] ¨Except where noted otherwise, all images on this site are from the IDP website and are © The British Library or the Bibliothèque nationale de France.¨ Renevs (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: PD-Art. Yann (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image not found at source provided. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must have made a mistake in typing the source. I changed it to the correct source. The source is is the International Dunhuang project ( IDL) . The whole purpose of the project is to digitalise and dissiminate old texts found in the Dunhuang cave. There are many more files from IDL on various Wikis ( German, French, English ) See for example Testament of Ba. This is absolutely in the public domain.

Renevs (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentThe source you provided is marked "International Dunhuang Project... © Bibliothèque nationale de France". Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The site of the International Dunhuang project is http://idp.bl.uk/. I quote ¨ IDP is a ground-breaking international collaboration to make information and images of all manuscripts, paintings, textiles and artefacts from Dunhuang and archaeological sites of the Eastern Silk Road freely available on the Internet and to encourage their use through educational and research programmes "

The most important European collections of the Dunhuang manuscripts are in the Britsih library and the Bibliothèque nationale de France. As I mentioned yesterday there are many pictures from these manuscripts on quite some Wikis. Next to the Manuscript of Ba I mentioned yesterday the result of a 1 minute search was [File:Sutra of the great virtue of wisdom.jpg,], File:Pelliot hébreu 1.jpg,File:Analects from Dunhuang.jpg, File:Diamond Sutra excerpt.jpg, Dosya:Dunhuang star map.jpg. Some pictures I uploaded were sourced from the site earlytibet.com. This is connected to the International Dunhuang project and trying to make knowledge of the Dunhuang projects more popular to the public. The pictures from early tibet.com can also be found on the site http://idp.bl.uk/.


Renevs (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The link to "source" still fails, perhaps you can check it again, please? Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait till tomorrow before closing this one. I'll pop him a message at his nl wiki talkpage. Natuur12 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Natuur12. Did it Renevs (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: PD-Art. Yann (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails FOP in the UK as it is not a permanent venue. I presume it has been taken down and not been put back up yet. Interestingly images under a free licence of the arena side on not overhead appear on the Files from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Flickr stream, which is somewhat staggering that the UK government would break it's own FOP rules. Flickrworker (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: "Buildings" and "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (permanently located in a public place)" are listed as two separate conditions on COM:FOP, implying your strict interpretation is incorrect. Our wording does not infer that the "permanently" requirement applies to the former. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's why I only nominated this image. Flickrworker (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Location not identifiable, no educational value. darkweasel94 11:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File not found at source given, possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the adress of the site( source) See for other comments Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelliot chinois 4646.jpg, posted a few minutes ago. Renevs (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete The source still 404s and comes back empty. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what ¨ the source still 404s means.

But here you can see the image on the site of IDP [20] and here is exactly the same image on the site of early tibet. [21]

Once again and I now quote the site of earlytibet again. See [22] ¨Except where noted otherwise, all images on this site are from the IDP website and are © The British Library or the Bibliothèque nationale de France.¨ You are really making wrong decisions with all the images from the early tibet siie Renevs (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment "The source still 404s" means that when you click it, it returns "SORRY AN ERROR OCCURRED..." which is referred to as a "404 error" by HTML users and is fairly common on the Internet as slang as explained here which I found by typing in "404 error" in google search. I agree totally with you that the earlytibet site says "all images on this site are from the IDP website and are © The British Library or the Bibliothèque nationale de France.¨" In fact that's the point, they do say they're copyright, and hence cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons even if the manuscripts are ancient, the library in this case retains copyright to the imagery of the manuscript. COM:L says right at top "A copyright license is a formal permission stating who may use a copyrighted work and how they may use it. A license can only be granted by the copyright holder, which is usually the author (photographer, painter or similar)." Therefore if the Bibliothèque nationale de France desires this image on Commons, they have to upload it or release copyright to Commons. The main problem with these uploads seems to be that they're all taken from copyrighted websites, clearly marked copyright which makes them all COM:COPYVIOs regardless of when the manuscript was written. Your argument on my talk page that hundreds or thousands of other images of the same type may need to be removed has no bearing on these particular images. It is possible even likely that many of them are correctly licensed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is now source IDP Renevs (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: PD-Art. Yann (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following link on source blog given leads to an item overview for this, marked "© British Library" here. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See for comments Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelliot chinois 4646.jpg,posted 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Renevs (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Image is marked "© British Library". I see the discussion on the other page, please see COM:L to understand why uploading copyright images is not allowed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I quote from the source.

¨ Now I wouldn’t be venturing into an area of which I know so very little, were it not for an amazing and totally unexplored manuscript from the Dunhuang cave that looks like the earliest Tibetan text on Chinese-style astrology – Or.8210/S.6878. It’s been written on the back of a Chinese sutra, and since it was filed along with the Chinese scrolls, the Tibetan side was ignored. How, I don’t know. It’s full of diagrams and ends with the rather strange tortoise that graces the top of this post. So I will say a little about this manuscript, and hope to learn something from anyone who knows more about the subject and is kind enough to comment.¨

That makes it a manuscript from the International Dunhuang project. Renevs (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again and I now quote the site of earlytibet again. See [23] ¨Except where noted otherwise, all images on this site are from the IDP website and are © The British Library or the Bibliothèque nationale de France.¨ Renevs (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: PD-Art. WP says 5th to 11th century. More precise info would be great. Yann (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following links in source given, the image came from here marked " © British Library", possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See comments Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pelliot chinois 4646.jpg, posted 20:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Renevs (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Image is marked "© British Library". I see the discussion on the other page, please see COM:L to understand why uploading copyright images is not allowed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-Art. Obviously old, but some more info would be great (which century?). Yann (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

È un file danneggiato sostituito con [24] Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 07:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is almost certainly under copyright. The uploader (User:Underlying lk) described it as "own work" but also points to the source here. The uploader may have made some changes (including cropping out the "copyright Infobase Publishing" notice) but this is clearly a derived work. Or if the uploader is claiming that he is Infobase Publishing or the cartographer of the original map (wouldn't matter probably as it's apparently work done for hire) it would be strange for him to have released this recent (2008) work and I'd like to see an OTRS ticket for that. Uploader has apparently uploaded lots of other stuff and someone might want to check that out also. Herostratus (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: this is a simple map of Europe and part of the Middle East, and the only original authorship by the creator is the addition of simple lines to show the border of the Ottoman Empire. If that falls under copyright protection, I don't see how it is possible to create a free map of any historical state without resorting to original research. This is true of any other historical map such as those in Category:Territorial evolution for example, even where no source is credited directly.--Underlying lk (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot more than a simple map of Europe and the Middle East, and it shows a lot more than the border of the empire; it shows the internal borders of each province, and somewhere down the line a fair amount of historical research had to be conducted to get those right. Your argument appears to come down to "If we don't consider this file to be free, then it would be impossible to have free maps of historical states, and we need those, so therefore it must be free" which comes down to "We need it, so it's free", and I don't find that convincing.
It may be that the original research ultimately devolves to work that has aged out of copyright, was donated to the public domain, was a US Government work, or whatever. Dunno about that, but in that case your best bet is to find and use those sources, and anyway one thing I do know is that the original has a big honken notice "Copyright Infobase Publishing" and we generally respect that I think. If your contention is that the copyright notice is false (if it is I guess Infobase Publishing might be breaking the law), the burden is on you to demonstrate that I would think. Herostratus (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: When I described it as simple I meant geometrically simple, as opposed to more elaborate maps, not that it can be effortlessly created. The amount of effort required is not a factor for copyright consideration, at least not in the US. Originality is, and the source map simply has no original content other than those black lines depicting the borders. In your opinion, are the black lines on this file more copyright-protected than, say, the lines on this file? Both required extensive amounts of research to be created, and other than the nature of the lines (one being a chart and the other a map) I cannot think of any differences between the two.--Underlying lk (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not. I suppose that file is also under copyright -- it's not even compiled by you from text data, but is a straight-out screenshot of a chart that Pautz made. You uploaded it as uncopyrightable since it's just simple geometry. It's not simple geometry and you seriously need to stop uploading files like that and making claims like that. That is intended for things like circles. It's true that it's made up of fairly simple geometric shapes, but so what? So are most of Paul Klee's paintings, are you going to claim that they are uncopyrightable too? The point is that the way the shapes are arranged is intellectual work, and that applies to Pautz as well as Klee. So anyway, this argument is not helpful to you.
BTW you commonly hear that Commons is broken, but is it also now abandoned? Does no one populate these discussions anymore? What we have here is a nominator and an uploader not agreeing, and if there are no other participants or even an admin to close, it's not clear how these things can be decided, which I guess devolves to "anything may be uploaded since there's no longer any mechanism to gainsay this", and if that's true then on that basis maybe the image is allowable. Herostratus (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It just takes some time before the discussion is closed. This is an issue, and if you wish to contribute the best thing you can do is to add your opinion to other deletion discussions.
About this file, if you think even charts fall under copyright then of course you would think this one needs to be deleted (even though neither are works of art, like a Paul Klee painting would be). Someone more knowledgeable of copyright laws than either of us will have to give its opinion on which interpretation is the right one. By the way, the cinema attendance chart wasn't compiled from raw figures because none were published. As you rightly said, necessity doesn't create a right, but in these cases the lack of originality does.--Underlying lk (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons FASTILY 07:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

È un file danneggiato sostituito con [25] Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 07:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyrighted models, sculptures, artwork, and costumes (see COM:Cosplay) shown; FOP in the US does not extend to artwork.

For the Hall of Fame inductees, there is the question as to whether the photos and signatures are copyrighted.

Gazebo (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept File:Monorail & EMP-SFM 01A.jpg per COM:DM. Rest deleted. The copyrighted elements in File:Monorail tracks enter EMP-SFM 01.jpg should be blurred out before the image is re-uploaded. I've made the image available for anyone who would like to do this: [26], [27] -FASTILY 07:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

È un file danneggiato. È stato sostituito con [28] Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 07:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyrighted image. See http://soundcheck.walmart.com/artists/the-fray/2014. Not sure how this was found to be cc-by-2.0. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I checked all of those before nominating and do not see the CC release anywhere. Besides, how can you ignore the Walmart water mark? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The CC release is right here on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/lunchboxstudios/12779878475/sizes/l/ Dman41689 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per previous decisions on this account and Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:The Fray 2014.jpg. Need to be consistent. Yann (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

È un file danneggiato, È stato sostituito con questo [29] Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 07:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]