Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/05/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
![28 File:CANTOS DE VIDA Y ESPERANZA "EL NUEVO MUSICAL DE IBEROAMERICA".jpg](#File:CANTOS_DE_VIDA_Y_ESPERANZA_"EL_NUEVO_MUSICAL_DE_IBEROAMERICA".jpg){kind=link}
-Urban_Legend--'_,_'_--King_(T-I-_album)-King--'_,_'_--T-I-_vs-_T-I-P---'_,_'_--Paper_Trail--'_,_'_--_2014-05-14_22-27.jpg){kind=link}
-_Тиана,_Золушка,_Аврора,_Белль,_Рапунцель-_Нижний_ряд(также_слева_2014-05-15_15-49.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_wilayah_Indonesia_Timur-_2014-05-05_16-33.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_es_un_adolescente_muy_guapo_que_estu_2014-05-14_23-09.jpg){kind=link}
![205 File:Ирина Шведова - выступление в клубе "Адмирал" 2009.JPG](#File:Ирина_Шведова_-_выступление_в_клубе_"Адмирал"_2009.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![208 File:Ирина Шведова - в образе "роковой героини" (2010).jpg](#File:Ирина_Шведова_-_в_образе_"роковой_героини"_(2010).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![212 File:Ирина Шведова - выступление в концертном зале "Россия" 1999.jpg](#File:Ирина_Шведова_-_выступление_в_концертном_зале_"Россия"_1999.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![223 File:Ирина Шведова - концерт "Танго с Петербургом" 2010.JPG](#File:Ирина_Шведова_-_концерт_"Танго_с_Петербургом"_2010.JPG){kind=link}
![225 File:Ирина Шведова - в образе "ретро" (2010).jpg](#File:Ирина_Шведова_-_в_образе_"ретро"_(2010).jpg){kind=link}
I am sorry. The page was created by mistake. Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Housekeeping . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal type photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, in addition, this is likely copyright violation. Posters are not own work. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio, uploader is not the copyright holder, and gives no evidence of permission. Google reverse image search gives plenty of hits. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 12:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
delete 77.243.20.77 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
delete NebojsaDikic (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
delete NebojsaDikic (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
delete NebojsaDikic (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
delete NebojsaDikic (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
delete NebojsaDikic (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. JuTa 09:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Ldloekoezmzzoeoebkeoioelo. Bjfyrruurruejrkoeoekskoplzpezlkzz:@32€;4833&38:433&&3 87.65.231.117 19:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
For its nature as a personal attack against an editor [1] and the usage of an image depicting a racist stereotype for non-encyclopedic purposes Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- SNOW delete As per nom; the file is being utilized outside article space on en.wiki as part of a sustained effort at denigration of a specific editor and the Wikipedia community broadly. It has zero encyclopedic value and utilizes racist imagery and text. Snow (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Vandalism. Nuled. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Paraiso Natural (talk · contribs)
[edit]Probably all taken from Facebook. Watermarks throughout, not own work and no indication of CC-license.
- File:BORBEN 1979331 737973886235987 464146235 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1920557 600791513338693 1854764030 n.png
- File:BORBEN 1614381.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1780183 737279772972065 1630938910 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1614382.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1614358.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1606250 598392443578600 1867563436 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1509273 737973319569377 1786243221 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1397003 737993896233986 1530361323 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1500808 737279762972066 1705422488 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1175389 599654246724600 1929017502 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1185531 599653973391294 871860649 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1098285 600590203297671 970846109 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 977981 737993852900657 646439521 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 977690 737973882902654 782464385 o.jpg
- File:1014719 249522488557948 1968063409 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 945626 478867965531049 2043836334 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 902295 737995426233833 920886424 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 893697 249521708558026 940347535 o.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Uploading / re-uploading of unfree content.
- File:Comarca de Vigo con Pazos de Borben.jpg
- File:Mapa carreteras.gif
- File:Borben.png
- File:Borben Iglesia Santiago de Borben.JPG
- File:Santo aparecido.jpg
- File:Santiago de Borben.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1979331 737973886235987 464146235 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1920557 600791513338693 1854764030 n.png
- File:BORBEN 1614381.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1780183 737279772972065 1630938910 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1614382.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1614358.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1606250 598392443578600 1867563436 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1509273 737973319569377 1786243221 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1397003 737993896233986 1530361323 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1500808 737279762972066 1705422488 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1175389 599654246724600 1929017502 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1185531 599653973391294 871860649 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 1098285 600590203297671 970846109 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 977981 737993852900657 646439521 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 977690 737973882902654 782464385 o.jpg
- File:1014719 249522488557948 1968063409 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 945626 478867965531049 2043836334 n.jpg
- File:BORBEN 902295 737995426233833 920886424 o.jpg
- File:BORBEN 893697 249521708558026 940347535 o.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused files, private images
BrightRaven (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
personal photos, out of scope
- File:Samantha Cleland 4.JPG
- File:Samantha cleland 5.JPG
- File:Samantha Cleland 3.JPG
- File:Samantha Cleland.JPG
- File:Samantha Cleland 2.JPG
- File:Km1.jpg
- File:Samantha cleland.JPG
Mjrmtg (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope imo, currently used in an unreferenced article of a person that appears non notable Gbawden (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Birth Name- Antonio Ari Ramos-Date of Birth- July 11, 1997-Rapper From Bronx, New York-Rap-Name- Young Rambo-Genre- Rap-Hip-Hop-Trap-Labels- Affiliated G Gang, Stunna Circle Mafia, Trill A$$ Mi$fit$-Independen 2014-04-29 00-09.jpg
[edit]
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
No source for aerial image given. Probably Google maps DW. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused purely textual PDF. Out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Blurry personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused purely textual pdf of dubious encyclopedic or educational value. Out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobija (talk • contribs) 2014-05-15T18:40:45 (UTC)
Keep No reason given. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)- Keep There is no reason to delete. File is properly licensed. Maurice07 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Maybe uploader request. Kleuske (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
this maintanance page is out of function since 2011. I see no reason to keep it. JuTa 22:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Its "replaced" by the content of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. --JuTa 22:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: + {{Historical}} -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused purely textual PDF. Out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused purely textual pdf of dubious educational or encyclopedic value. Out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
porque daña derechos de autor Barítono Gabriel Carballo (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
![15:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/15#c-Barítono_Gabriel_Carballo-2014-05-15T15:39:00.000Z-File:CANTOS_DE_VIDA_Y_ESPERANZA_"EL_NUEVO_MUSICAL_DE_IBEROAMERICA".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
![11:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/15#c-Steinsplitter-2014-05-22T11:11:00.000Z-File:CANTOS_DE_VIDA_Y_ESPERANZA_"EL_NUEVO_MUSICAL_DE_IBEROAMERICA".jpg){kind=link}
Plain advertisement, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused purely textual PDF of dubious educational or encyclopedic value. Out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused purely textual PDF. Out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
File:CT's Dondiva her self- Cream! An artist from CT- She raps, promotes, event planner, broker, host, she is a jack of all trades! Remember this face and that name, she's not going any where! 2014-04-30 08-19.jpg
[edit]
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused comic/fan-art PDF of dubious educational or encyclopedic value. Out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by AntiCompositeNumber. --Captain-tucker (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused purely textual PDF of dubious educational or encyclopedic value. Out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Hip Hop- Rap artist was born March 17th, 1989- Born Jarrell Perez- In March,17,1989- 2014-04-29 20-56.jpg
[edit]
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
File:I m looking forward to what s next in my chapter in life- I also see myself challenge myself to become better no matter what life throws at my way- 2014-04-29 00-45.jpg
[edit]
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Redunacy, out of project scope. Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 20:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Redunacy, out of project scope. Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 20:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Redunacy, out of project scope. Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 20:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
blank, out of scope ( i know, modern art, bla bla bla) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Redunancy, out of project scope. Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 19:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
File:T-I- has released eight --studio album--s (' --I'm Serious--' , ' --Trap Muzik--' , ' --Urban Legend (album)-Urban Legend--' , ' --King (T-I- album)-King--' , ' --T-I- vs- T-I-P---' , ' --Paper Trail--' , ' -- 2014-05-14 22-27.jpg
[edit]-Urban_Legend--%27_,_%27_--King_(T-I-_album)-King--%27_,_%27_--T-I-_vs-_T-I-P---%27_,_%27_--Paper_Trail--%27_,_%27_--_2014-05-14_22-27.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Urban_Legend--%27_,_%27_--King_(T-I-_album)-King--%27_,_%27_--T-I-_vs-_T-I-P---%27_,_%27_--Paper_Trail--%27_,_%27_--_2014-05-14_22-27.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
File:The very best salesman that ever existed! Michael Wayne Nobles is one of a very few elite recognized sales professionals- His career as a sales consultant has netted him over $2,000,000 is this field- 2014-05-14 19-57.jpg
[edit]
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE Storkk (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio, keine Freigabe ersichtlich, OTRS-Ticket fehlt. Udo Remmes ist 1954 geboren. Alinea (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Этот молодой человек спас меня от маньяка щас я роскожу как это было--Я Светлана гуляла 2014-04-29 18-40.jpg
[edit]
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lady precious raymond (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of project scope
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-43.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-41.jpg
- File:Music track- Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-40.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-38.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-36.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-34.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-33.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-31.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-29.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-28.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-25.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond- musiker 2014-04-27 12-23.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond musiker 2014-04-27 12-21.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-20.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-19.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-17.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-15.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-13.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-10.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-09.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-08.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-07.jpg
- File:Lady precious raymond 2014-04-27 12-06.jpg
Didym (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sumant Rajbhar (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of project scope
Didym (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahmed mohamed ali q8 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
Didym (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Toy thammavongsa (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of project scope
- File:โต่ย เดักลาว 2014-04-30 17-48.jpg
- File:โต่ย ทำมะวงสา 2014-04-30 17-46.jpg
- File:Toy thammavongsa 2014-04-30 11-13.jpg
Didym (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope
Didym (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Husseinalimshcoor (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of project scope
- File:طفل عراقي في غاية الجمال 2014-04-29 05-01.jpg
- File:الشاعر اﻷستاذ الدكتور كريم ثامر الكعبي طبيب واستاذ جامعي مشهور ولد ونشأ في محافظة النجف اﻻشرف في العراق وتلقى تعل 2014-04-29 04-30.jpg
Didym (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nwritter318 (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work, copyright violation
Didym (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chuotzeny1996 (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of project scope
Didym (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
out of scope . Commons is not a personal photo gallery.
~ Nahid Talk 20:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shakeer tk (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of project scope
Didym (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Loch-Freundeskreis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Works by Walter Eberhard Loch. No permission.
- File:Landschaft 31 R.JPG
- File:Aases Tod kl.jpg
- File:Tiger 2 S.JPG
- File:Selbsporträt 1 R.JPG
- File:3 Tänzerinnen 7 S.JPG
BrightRaven (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Mobile upload photos without camera EXIF data. This is especially problematic given CMC++'s history of false claims of authorship and other copyright problems. Recommend deletion as a precaution.
- File:Hong Kong Governor house 2013-05-23 06-37.jpg
- File:Equation from someone 2013-05-23 06-35.jpg
- File:Black Friday 2013-05-23 06-27.jpg
- File:Kangaroo fans 2013-05-23 06-26.jpg
- File:Casino 2013-05-23 06-22.jpg
- File:National Day 2012 2013-05-23 06-18.jpg
- File:When Mr Sun meet with Ms Moon witness by rainbow and cloud 2013-05-23 06-15.jpg
Senator2029 07:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
copyright violations or out of project scope
- File:赵式芝照于2014年3月 2014-05-11 21-17.jpg
- File:Picture taken at Hong Kong IT Expo Fair during April 2014 2014-05-05 19-11.jpg
- File:Dr Cecil Chao 2014-05-03 23-38.jpg
- File:Mun Chung taken at Ion Orchard, Singapore during Christmas Eve 2013 2014-04-29 12-32.jpg
Didym (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user images, out of project scope
- File:Тут можно найти исходный код 2014-04-30 05-24.jpg
- File:Я отказался от лицензии 2014-04-30 05-03.jpg
Didym (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by La Ruidosa (talk · contribs)
[edit]very low quality, at least some of the files are copyright violations
- File:Campo De La Ruidosa 2014-04-30 00-20.jpg
- File:Calle De --La Ruidosa-- 2014-04-29 23-13.png
- File:River located in --La Ruidosa-- 2014-04-29 22-59.jpg
- File:Casas de Adobes.jpg
- File:La Ruidosa Copán 2014-04-03 17-03.jpeg
- File:Calles De La Ruidosa Copán 2014-03-29 17-42.jpeg
- File:Escuela De La Ruidosa Copán 2014-03-29 17-40.jpeg
- File:Calles De La Ruidosa Copán 2014-03-29 17-39.jpeg
- File:Casas De La Ruidosa Copán 2014-03-29 17-38.jpg
- File:Casas De La Ruidosa Copán 2014-03-29 17-37.jpg
- File:Casas De La Ruidosa Copán 2014-03-29 17-36.jpg
- File:La Ruidosa Copan Honduras.jpeg
Didym (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shivanandsb86 (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user images, out of project scope
Didym (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Precious iyoriobhe (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused user image, out of project scope
Didym (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user images, out of project scope
- File:千疋屋 2014-04-30 10-06.jpg
- File:Ryuya.JPG
- File:Taokaryuya.jpg
- File:Shoshouryuu.jpg
- File:Rin.jpg
- File:千疋屋.JPG
- File:J12copy Diamond Sapphire.jpg
- File:Yakuza beats.jpg
- File:Dragonbeats.jpg
- File:MY LUXURIATOR byFranco.jpg
- File:LUXURIATOR byFranco.jpg
- File:田岡龍也.JPG
Didym (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
unused user image, out of project scope
- File:سلام خدمت شما 2014-04-29 21-10.jpg
- File:من 2014-04-29 21-03.jpg
- File:بنده سالهاست زنده ام 2014-04-29 20-54.jpg
- File:چاق خیلی زیباست 2014-04-29 20-46.jpg
Didym (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
File:An abundance of love a soaring spirit always cheerful she makes her friends laugh seldom tells people her opinions she never accepts-- 2014-05-15 12-11.jpg
[edit]
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No educational value. Green Giant (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted fraternity logo. No evidence of copyright release or PD status GrapedApe (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE Storkk (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" 37.5.3.148 14:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
INSHA ALLAH I am an inventor,engineer and the nawab of Dera Ismail khan,pakistan Title A hazard free screened switch using magnetic flux and glass Applicant KHAN NAWAB IKRAMULLAH Inventor Khan Nawab Ikramullah Opposition - Filed 2008-06-02 Published 2008-12-03 Abstract A screened switch comprising; two permanent horseshoe magnets, one located in a safe zone, the other located in a dangerous work zone, the magnets being connected via a glass sheet; two electrical contacts isolated from each other within the safe zone; a third contact which makes or breaks the electrical circuit being fixed on the lower magnet in the dangerous zone; a manual force being applied to the upper magnet in the safe zone causes it to move to and fro moving the lower magnet in the dangerous zone along with it thus making or breaking the circuit. Claims Description By the GRACE OF ALLAH remained as an ADC to the founding vice chancellor,Nawab Allah Nawaz Khan the nawab of dera ismail khan my grand father who donated 20000 Kanal of land (2500 acres) in association with my respected Father Dr.Nawabzada AmanUllah Khan,Nawabzada Ahad Nawaz Khan,G.ahmad cough tai,M Abdul Haq sahib and my beloved teacher Nawab QAYUM Nawaz Khan.Mr Gandhi remained our guest at ALLAH NAWAZ CASTLE OF THE NAWAB OF DERA ISMAIL KHAN Pakistan
Out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically educationally or encyclopedically useful. Storkk (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
because it's old Elahi Ryan (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not a valid reason for opening a DR. If you are the uploader, just upload an updated version or please use {{Speedy}} instead. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted fraternity logo. No evidence of copyright release or PD status GrapedApe (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE Storkk (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
File:The poster for the so far unnannounced 2017 underground short film Phantom 2014-04-30 22-54.jpg
[edit]
Likely a hoax, and if so, not realistically useful for an educational or encyclopedic purpose, therefore out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Официальные принцессы- Верхний ряд (слева направо)- Тиана, Золушка, Аврора, Белль, Рапунцель- Нижний ряд(также слева 2014-05-15 15-49.jpg
[edit]-_%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0,_%D0%97%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0,_%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0,_%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8C,_%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C-_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4(%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B6%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_2014-05-15_15-49.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-_%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0,_%D0%97%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0,_%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0,_%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8C,_%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C-_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4(%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B6%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_2014-05-15_15-49.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violations Wikifido (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Официальные принцессы- Верхний ряд, слева направо- Жасмин, Тиана, Аврора, Белль, Золушка, Рапунцель- Нижний ряд- Ари 2014-05-15 19-30.JPG
[edit]
Copyright violations Wikifido (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ElderEspanaPerez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope/private photos
- File:I'm Elder España Pérez - 2014-05-15 10-01.jpg
- File:Elder Pérez el perseverante perfil de Facebook - 2014-05-15 09-25.jpg
~ Nahid Talk 15:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Not used personal picture, looks out of scope Southparkfan 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
A drawing of Bugs Bunny is a derivative work and not an own work. 37.5.3.148 14:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete – Unless this is a historical image, the quality is to poor to be useful. Also, the dubious nature of the "own work" claim. Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 19:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Attack image (see description). Besides, this image pre-dates 2002: it's listed at [2] (here). That's some server with by-year collection of "funny" pics. Yes, the directory file listing shows 2007 as the date -- but it does that for the whole directory tree.[3] Evidently that content was moved to a new computer in 2007 (also note how all timestamps are basically the same: clearly some mass-import).
So, since I don't see the point why someone would create a full-fledged faked directory structure, I presume whoever collected these images indeed found them in the years given by the directories. For this image, that's 2002. Long before the upload here.
The image doesn't serve any purpose and is unused. Given that it is that old, we're unlikely to ever figure out the real origin and license, if any. Therefore, I suggest to delete this. Lupo 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, even 2007 is three years before the upload at the Commons... Lupo 06:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Copy of http://fansfoot.com/fun/images/logo.png Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
no evidence of permission, uploader removed tag Jfhutson (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The file is Creative Commons 3.0 licensed, per Frank Truek. I thought he had sent OTRS a permissions letter. If he has not, please let me know and I will contact him.--TMDrew (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Confirmed that the release letter is, in fact, sent to OTRS. --TMDrew (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- In the future, you might use {{OP}} once you've sent or asked someone to send an email. --Jfhutson (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Jpeg format unsuitable for this type of logo (transparency, ...). Also: too low res. Replaced with File:CA Primavera - Curitiba - PR.png. OAlexander (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, agree the low res, and the file is not in use. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
There's no evidence given that the image shown is the work of the uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Contains only one file. Vzeebjtf (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This is an iphone photo of a printed photo, and it is not evident that uploader is the original photographer or copyright holder. Storkk (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Redunacy, out of project scope. Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 20:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Uploaders request: Duplicate https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amira-Willighagen-20140510.jpg. Uploader released the photo via OTRS and then uploaded it as a near duplicate. Grashoofd (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
A portrait of the uploader? (unused) 37.5.3.148 15:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Storkk (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Scan of magazine article with professional photo Captain-tucker (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader has the legal ability to license this image under a free license. Storkk (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Coteindia/sandbox). MER-C 11:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It's an error, I just wanted to test. Irene Pelegrí (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a valid reason for opening a DR. If you are the uploader, please use {{Speedy}} instead. Amitie 10g (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
this may be out of scope as a work of art. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Martha Dodd pictured age 24 on far left with brother, father and mother- 2014-04-30 17-26.png
[edit]
Screenshot of a google image search, not {{Own}}. If the description is correct, the picture was taken in approximately 1933, meaning it is unlikely to be in the public domain. Storkk (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Professional portrait, no evidence that uploader is the copyright holder. Storkk (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Image is a derivative of the photo on the depicted plaque. It's not covered by FOP, as U.S.-FOP covers only buildings. However, the original photography is eventually in the public-domain. But we need some evidence for that. In addition, the original photographer should be credited. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free medaillon. Eleassar (t/p) 12:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No permission. Request for permission has been simply deleted by uploader. This is not a simple text logo; we need an explicit release from the company through OTRS. Also, this is a re-upload of previously deleted content (File:El logo de jetix latinoamerica 2014-04-21 13-29.jpeg, same reason: no permission for 7 days). Lupo 05:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I see now the previous upload was deleted because of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jetix logo.jpg. Lupo 05:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Image is clearly [4] which appears on [5] asserts a copyright to the content. Uploaded by a newly registered user such that it seems reasonable that they are not familiar with copyright and may not be able to make the Creative Commons grant. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
![[4]](https://store.mcguckin.com/inet/styles/mcguckin/images/Logo-Header.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
File:H- Abd Gaffar Lewa, SE-, beliau seorang Kepala Cabang di PT- CIMB Niaga Syariah Makassar- Gaffar juga berperan sebagai ketua Asbisindo (Asosiasi Bank Syariah Indonesia) wilayah Indonesia Timur- 2014-05-05 16-33.jpg
[edit]_wilayah_Indonesia_Timur-_2014-05-05_16-33.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_wilayah_Indonesia_Timur-_2014-05-05_16-33.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This image is taken from a website without attributionː http://www.ag.state.mn.us/Photos/LoriSwanson.jpg Jonathunder (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Clearly not out of copyright - the source page specifically attributes the copyright to the artist, who is still alive Sabrebd (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Jonathan Panigutti in uno scatto fatto durante la premiazione alle nazionali Di Ginnastica Artistica 2014-05-15 14-30.jpg
[edit]
Out of scope - no educational purpose (personal photo) Rojelio (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope; unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no license Mehlauge (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope - no educational purpose (personal photo) Rojelio (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope - no educational purpose (personal photo) Rojelio (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения разрешения на указанную лицензию Dogad75 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Подтверждение отправлено автором сегодня, три часа назад. Toskana (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Подтверждение в OTRS получено, тикет #2014051510015921. Прошу снять с удаления и закрыть тему.--Dogad75 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Derivative of a non-existing file, likely not an official flag Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation - edit of http://legacy.belmont.sd62.bc.ca/teacher/geology12/photos/structural/earth-layers-anticline-t13214.jpg — Yerpo Eh? 17:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
As Ada Negri died only in 1945, the depicted bust is still copyrighted as its creator cannot be dead since >70 years. Regrettably, Italy has no freedom-of-panorama exception for public works. Thereby this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
"Own work" is not very plausible for this half-toned newspaper clipping. Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Moved from talk page
- Este archivo es del diario los andes, referido al fallecimieno de mi padre que jugo al futbol en independiente rivadavia de mendoza, argentina.
- Fue un reconocido jugador de futbol, e idolo de esa institucion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.39.131.138 (talk • contribs)
- End moved from talk page
Bastante bien, pero eso no lo hace su propia obra ("own work"). Los derechos del autor, incluso copyright, pertenecen al fotógrafo y al periodico, no al subjecto del foto o sus herederos. Si puede obtener permiso de Diario Los Andes, podemos mantenerlo (o restorarlo). Véase COM:OTRS/es si quiere tratar de pedir permiso. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
(Brief translation: he says it's from a newspaper Diario Los Andes about his late father, a footballer of some note. I clarified to him that that does not give him the rights of an author, that if he wants it kept here he'll need those released by the rights-holder, and I referred him to COM:OTRS/es.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Source attributes the image to the subject himself. The author needs to clarify the ownership (authorship). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Turkmenistan: non-free building (2000s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.85.190.147 (talk • contribs) 2014-05-14T22:54:55 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no license Mehlauge (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Authorship very unclear. Uploader is Ulises Baine, an Argentine artist who has mostly uploaded his own work; I believe he's notable enough for that to be in scope; I personally certainly welcome his work here. However, here his own edit seems to indicate that the author is someone else. Unless that can be cleared up, I don't see how we can keep this. Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not sure if this picture belongs to Commons, looks like a common vacation picture. Mippzon (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
out of scope; text only (list of formulas, probably better done in a wiki article) Lupo 18:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
this may be a valid work, but i think its avant garde nature places it out of scope. a framed version in a gallery might work. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
blank, out of scope (may be the actual work, but no way to know) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Authorship very unclear. Uploader is Ulises Baine, an Argentine artist who has mostly uploaded his own work; I believe he's notable enough for that to be in scope; I personally certainly welcome his work here. However, here he indicates the photograph is by someone else, so that person would presumably hold the copyright. Unless that can be sorted out (e.g. via COM:OTRS) I don't see how we can keep this. Jmabel ! talk 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Regular100show es un estudiante creador de un canal de you tuve regular100show apresar de no ser tan popular se considera como uno de los you tubers mas guapos(mi opinión) es un adolescente muy guapo que estu 2014-05-14 23-09.jpg
[edit]_es_un_adolescente_muy_guapo_que_estu_2014-05-14_23-09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_es_un_adolescente_muy_guapo_que_estu_2014-05-14_23-09.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Read my notes wrongly before uploading. That is Stäfa not Männedorf. Chris j wood (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope; unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused inferior later duplicate of File:Nuvola apps edu languages.png, the reason for this file was the IE6 support. We should not have anymore support for IE6 (which is the last browser without PNG transparency support) I also really believe that nobody in the whole world serious nor (should) use the IE6 (Microsoft even gives a damn on these). (I am writing this long text because the duplicate tag was removed.) Perhelion (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
A new, better version of photo has been added: [[File:Gedung_birokrasi_Unsyiah.jpg]] Rachmat.Wahidi (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE. Storkk (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope; unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Google+
[edit]Superseded raster images. Better quallity (in my opinion): File:Google Plus logo.png.
Varied Surf Igloo (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a promotional image or screen capture from a video clip and is unlikely to be the uploader's own work. DAJF (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтвеждения авторства, часто встречается в Интернете, на странице http://www.km.ru/stil/2012/11/12/krasota-i-ukhod-za-soboi/697111-pevitsa-irina-shvedova-zhenshchina-s-molodoi-dushoi- автор фото указана Фото Яна Павелковская Dogad75 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
EN: The file is useless: its value is questionable due to the poor quality of the photography subject (paper model), so it cannot be used at any of the wiki articles.
RU: Файл бесполезен: его ценность сомнительна из-за низкого качества субъекта фотографии (бумажной модели), из-за чего он не может быть использован в статьях википедии.
Jasnorville (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения авторских прав, на фото изображена личность, загрузившая файл Dogad75 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
![18:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/15#c-Dogad75-2014-05-15T18:17:00.000Z-File:Ирина_Шведова_-_в_образе_"ретро"_(2010).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
![19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/05/15#c-Natuur12-2014-05-23T19:32:00.000Z-File:Ирина_Шведова_-_в_образе_"ретро"_(2010).jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Ljubljana Cathedral (exterior)
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free reliefs of the church doors.
- File:Laibach (13890144717).jpg
- File:Laibach (13890175659).jpg
- File:Laibach (14053671126).jpg
- File:Laibach (14076790195).jpg
- File:Laibach (14077245944).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 12:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
--TadejM (t/p) 15:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused files, no educational purpose
- File:Che's free electricity alternator book how-to.pdf
- File:Eddie Che's Energy Alternator electricity generator image diagram.jpg
- File:Alchemy Hack Art Design.jpg
- File:Bowl by eddieche.png
- File:Noisebridge bag.jpg
- File:Rocket Stove in Progress.jpg
- File:Rocket Stove Finished.jpg
- File:Rocket Stove in Action.jpg
- File:Rocket Stove in progress.jpg
- File:How To Make a Free Zinebook.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashleybiersack (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused file, private image, self-promotion
BrightRaven (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Tagged images. Some indicates "all rights reserved" text. Not qualified to be uploaded for Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2014 in Ghana
Enock4seth (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused files, private images
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
BrightRaven (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arsalan Sheraz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion
- File:Arslan Sheraz.jpg
- File:Arslan Sheraz Album Title(Chehra).jpg
- File:Arslan Sheraz-The Sensation.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
BrightRaven (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Claudiaemr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused file, private image
- File:Ashley Terrebonne.jpg
- File:Beautiful Dreamer.jpg
- File:My Savior's Triumph.jpg
- File:Sunset LA.jpg
- File:Seaside Florida.jpg
- File:Street Car.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a second copyright notice for 2006 to Columbia at the bottom of the screenshot. We hope (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment — While the Three Stooges short “Disorder in the Court” (1936) indeed is now in the public domain due to Columbia Pictures inexplicably neglecting to renew its copyright, this color title card does appear to have an second 2006 copyright notice, unlike the black & white title card from the 1936 release. The B&W title card has just the single MCMXXXVI (1936) copyright notice. Presumably the color title card is from a later release, so the 2006 copyright notice applies to any creative changes in the later release (maybe just the colorization of the title card?). The right solution is probably to upload the B&W title card (perhaps as a new revision of this file or with a redirect from this file to the B&W file) and delete the color title card. —RP88 18:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you re: going with the original title card since that wasn't renewed. We hope (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- According to the listing for this at copyright.gov, they colorized the film and added new material to qualify for the 2006 copyright. We have another Stooges title card at DR File:BridelessTITLEcolor.JPEG with the same problem, but from 1947. Just checked the film renewals for 1974 and 1975--the title isn't there, but checking it at copyright.gov, shows a 2006 copyright for the same colorization and new material as this one. The original title card shows only a 1947 copyright notice--it also should be able to be uploaded in place of the file we now have. We hope (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Have just uploaded the original 1936 title card File:Disorder in the Court title 1936.jpg to be used as a replacement for this one. We hope (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've replaced all uses of File:DisorderinCourtTITLE.jpg on the various languages of WP with File:Disorder in the Court title 1936.jpg, except one. It wouldn't be appropriate to swap the image at no:Håndkolorering since that article is actually about the film colorization process. I'll let the editors of that article find a suitable replacement after File:DisorderinCourtTITLE.jpg is deleted. —RP88 12:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Have just uploaded the original 1936 title card File:Disorder in the Court title 1936.jpg to be used as a replacement for this one. We hope (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- According to the listing for this at copyright.gov, they colorized the film and added new material to qualify for the 2006 copyright. We have another Stooges title card at DR File:BridelessTITLEcolor.JPEG with the same problem, but from 1947. Just checked the film renewals for 1974 and 1975--the title isn't there, but checking it at copyright.gov, shows a 2006 copyright for the same colorization and new material as this one. The original title card shows only a 1947 copyright notice--it also should be able to be uploaded in place of the file we now have. We hope (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you re: going with the original title card since that wasn't renewed. We hope (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Great! If no:WP allows non free files, they might be able to transfer the colorized title card to that wiki; actually since the article is about colorization of films, a photo/frame of any film that was colorized would work in the article. Losing the Brideless Groom color title card wouldn't affect anyone as it's not being used in any articles. I replaced that one with a B & W 1947 copy too. We hope (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately no:wiki doesn't allow fair use images, because they don't have an Exemption Doctrine Policy. I believe only admins can upload files and even then according to strict criteria. Their "upload file" link for ordinary users takes you straight to Commons. Green Giant (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: apparently copyrighted FASTILY 10:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Denmark has COM:FOP but it does not apply to building interiors. Leoboudv (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- It looks to me that there is nothing copyrightable on the picture, but I might be wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a second copyright notice-for 2006 to Columbia--at the bottom of the screenshot. We hope (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- A check for renewals of the original 1947 film was done at UPenn for the years 1974 and 1975. There were no renewals, but a search of this title at copyright.gov, turns up the 2006 registration seen on this file with the explanation that the film was colorized and new material was added. There is, however, no indication that copyright continues to be claimed on the original black & white version of the film. I have uploaded File:Brideless Groom title 1947.jpg as a replacement for this one. We hope (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The uploader's claim of an authorization of every kind of use needs a confirmation, as the website carries a note "Copyright © 2013 Diario VI Región. Todos los derechos reservados" and as per the wording on page 2 I am not totally sure whether the given permission includes also comercial use and the creation of derivative, both of which are required per COM:L. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, the website is copyrighted. But print editions, specifically page 2 of every newspaper edition, contains the following text, right below the editorial info: "Se autoriza la reproducción total o parcial de la información de este medio, escrita o visual, indicando la fuente" (Partial or total reproduction of this media information, may it be written or visual is authorized, indicating the source). It's obvious they authorize for any kind of use. Though we could be like, more "safely" using this by e-mailing the newspaper asking to confirm their content is released even for commercial use by attributing their work. (?) küñall (nütramyen) 07:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do so, please. Commons:Permission --Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission FASTILY 10:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2084 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose According to this diff, you have modified the license of the image to the one you are complaining about now. If you think that the image should be deleted, point what was wrong with the original license
- Delete Yes, indeed, I modified the license because this image is not hosted at Presidency of Argentina website (as the uploader stated). The only Menem's photo (as president) found at the website is this so I support my request.
- In fact, some users upload photos previously published on other media tagging them with {{CC-AR-Presidency}} (which is obviously wrong), as I commented on other DR. - Fma12 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Carlos Menem became President of Argentina on July 8, 1989, therfore this is copyright in the US as there were no requirements regards notices after March 1 1989. LGA talkedits 09:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 10:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Jpeg format unsuitable for this type of logo (transparency,...). Also too low res, etc. Replaced with File:Ypiranga FC- Niteroi - RJ.png. OAlexander (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 10:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg (per discussion below, added after the initial nom)
The subject of this photo is making a gesture toward the photographer that strongly suggests she did not want to be photographed, much less have the photo widely published on the Internet. While it is true that the public location exempts this from literal problems with US law and COM:IDENT, it is a bad idea for Commons (in the absence of a very compelling reason) to host images of people who clearly do not want them published. I don't think we (yet) have a policy that forbids hosting a file like this, but perhaps we should. Whether or not we take that step, though, we should just delete this file. -Pete F (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Let's call it a courtesy deletion on behalf of the subject. As an aside, the image is of such poor quality it should be deleted on the basis of a waste of storage and contributing to green house gasses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Besides for what Pete said, it's out of scope as it lacks a conceivable educational use.
- My initial nomination put forward multiple rationales, and though I more than understand the move, I'm not sure why @MichaelMaggs: speedy closed the initial nom since renaming the file didn't deal with all of the points in my original nom. This file also needs to be nuked and should probably be included in this nom as well. I'd also note that the file Michael moved is still categorized in multiple categories related to sex work. I'd remove them myself, but Michael also didn't suppress the redirect from the former page name and since I'm not a sysop here I don't have the capacity to delete the redirect (although I suppose I could blank it.) However, the history of the file would still contain potentially defamatory content in edit summaries etc, which is an issue I can't possibly deal with myself. Since I don't view it as an absolutely urgent concern (the files have been on Commons for years, a few more hours for a sysop to clean it up is unlikely to hurt,) and because I can't fix all of the remaining issues myself, I'm holding off on doing the portion of the cleanup that I could do myself for at least a bit in hopes a sysop stumbles by, since the potentially defamatory statements in both of these photos and their history cannot be fully removed without a sysop bit. (My computer crashed so I editconflicted on this one.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete both this file and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_01_Memphis_TN.jpg per nom and Kevin's comments above. Andreas JN466 01:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I support the idea of adding File:EP Blvd 01 Memphis TN.jpg to the nomination, and have done so above. That file should also be deleted for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- To explain the background, this image was previously nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EP Blvd 02 Memphis TN.jpg. Given the potential defamation in the filename, I dealt with that on a speedy basis as soon as I saw it, by way of a rename. I recognise that there are other grounds on which this image should be deleted - now restated above - and in fact I agree with them. Perhaps what I should have done is to rename the file and left the original deletion request running, but now we have this new request the end result may well be the same. In the meantime, I have now also deleted the redirect and removed the problematic categories. I have dealt similarly with the other file which I hadn't seen before. To me, that second file is a less obvious candidate for a courtesy deletion, but I would still delete it on the basis of a lack of potential for any realistic educational use.
- Just to be clear, I think we should Delete both files, but now that the defamation issue has been dealt with (apart from the less visible file histories), this nomination is probably no longer suitable for speedy closure and should I suggest now be left for the normal seven days. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I think we should
- Delete Out of scope, poor quality images not suitable for any use. There is no need for a detailed discussion on COM:IDENT as they already failed in the basic requirement (useful) level. Jee 03:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a clear COM:IDENT issue, there's no need to keep it open for the full seven days. russavia (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Beggars in Spain
[edit]As per Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Spain consent to take a photograph of a person in a public space in Spain is required, and also permission is required to publish it. There is no evidence that these images comply with these requirements.
- File:2006 homeless at mcdonalds.jpg
- File:Etxegabea donostian.jpg
- File:Madrid - beggar.jpg
- File:Please Senor. No! (4203452585).jpg
- File:Santa Maria del Mar 3 (Porta del Born).JPG
- File:The Forgotten Society (4219703164).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Instead of deleting the photographs, I would suggest to mask/hide the faces of those persons.--Jordiferrer (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Only File:2006 homeless at mcdonalds.jpg and File:The Forgotten Society (4219703164).jpg can be seen as a photo of an identifiable person. The other people are non identifiable people or their presence is just incidental.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Pere Prlpz user. Only that two files are from identifiable persons and this fact can be removed masking the faces. In the other files face of those persons is hidden, so are not identifiable. - Joxemai (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: 2 deleted, rest kept FASTILY 06:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted, per here -FASTILY 20:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Austria: not on permanent display.
- File:-Porzellan Augarten Vienna 2007 006 1.jpg
- File:Porzellan Augarten Vienna 2007 003.jpg
- File:Porzellan Augarten Vienna 2007 006.jpg
- File:Porzellan Augarten Vienna 2007 008.jpg
- File:Porzellan Augarten Vienna 2007 009.jpg
- File:Porzellan Augarten Vienna 2007 014.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 10:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep Most of these patterns and designs dating back to the 18th and 19th century and therefore are in the public domain. The copyright on them has expired. Detailed descriptions have been added to the respective image. Gryffindor (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete File:Porzellan Augarten Vienna 2007 008.jpg, File:Porzellan Augarten Vienna 2007 006.jpg and File:-Porzellan Augarten Vienna 2007 006 1.jpg are dated 1926-29. I see no evidence for this tree to be Public Domain.
- Keep for three others. Ankry (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: 3 deleted, rest kept FASTILY 06:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)