Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/05/21

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive May 21st, 2014
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

AP photo (inc credit) as seen here. LGA talkedits 02:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: feel free to nominate obvious copyvios with {{Copyvio}}. . Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

AP image (as seen here) LGA talkedits 02:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Louvre pyramid is the photo's main subject. Its architect en:I. M. Pei, is still alive. Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in France. Storkk (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: As per nom and as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Louvre pyramid is the photo's main subject. Its architect en:I. M. Pei, is still alive. Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in France. Storkk (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: As per nom and as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong file name CeeGee (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. After that CeeGee uploaded correct file under new name. Taivo (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

includes big logo, promotional Motopark (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope: The Commons is no private artwork collecting point. 178.7.237.121 14:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nom Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bewatdma (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents of questionable notability.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bewatdma (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Text contributions - lists of weblinks to some blogs - out of project scope of Wikimedia Commons.

Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


deleted speedy after checking the files and the links: The pdf files only contain weblinks to pirate websites with digital copys of copyrighted, recent books. User blocked for abusing the project for promoting copyright infringements. --Martin H. (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also sockpuppet accounts User:Er79. --Martin H. (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Why? Because he NOTHING BETTER TO) DO with his time than look for errors of posts from people who are new don't even know they made. TheRealGaryPrivate (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose: Deletion requests are for files, not users. Illegitimate Barrister 08:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Invalid deletion discussion. Please report user issues to COM:AN/U Nick (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why are you trying to delete the biography of Angela V. Woodhull? Please email me and let me know. 66.112.75.53 23:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy kept: Non-sense second DR to a user page. Also, Commons is not Wikipedia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

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

out of project scope/unused ~ Nahid Talk 15:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Captain-tucker (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Captain-tucker (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Diosadelnilo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused files, photographs of self-created artworks

BrightRaven (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Captain-tucker (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

personal photo out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: In scope in the category "Smiling children" ; image quality is above average High Contrast (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Lupo 08:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accidential upload. Really over exposed and not really usefull. Natuur12 (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see anything wrong with it on my side it was uploaded with a cell phone

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lets waste community time debating the deletion of a needless redirect because some admins just cannot allow themselves to rethink their hasty, uninformed decisions. -- Tuválkin 20:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment from the talk page: «This redirect should be deteled as it was found to be a duplicate and was tagged as such shortly after it was uploaded (by me, on May 10th, 2014). Any admin who is fastidious enough to refuse such a trivial speedy deletion should also be able to confirm that fact. -- Tuválkin 19:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)»[reply]

Kept: old original upload from 2008. There might be links from outsite the wiki world. JuTa 16:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope: unused files, self-created artworks

BrightRaven (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Obviously no objections to the arguments by the nominators. Commons is no place for the publication or promotion of self created art. None of the files above are used. High Contrast (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Dana kushen (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Screenshots of tables from other Wikipedias for inclusion in kk.wikipedia... please copy the source code of the tables, not make screenshots of them.

Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages screenshots

Arystanbek (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages screenshots

Arystanbek (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No need to keep such screenshots on Commons; all in all out of scope High Contrast (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This photo shows a set of steps without any information about location or significance. There is no educational value in keeping this photo per COM:EDUSE. Green Giant (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very tiny, no metadata, looks professionally shot: {{Own}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, COM:OTRS should be followed to verify this. Storkk (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wil Delvoye is alive. There no FOP in Belgium. German FOP does not apply to photographs taken in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

useless without a description 91.65.52.114 13:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly fails COM:DM. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background is now heavily blurred. -abbedabbdisk 09:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: fixed FASTILY 09:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused user portrait 91.65.52.114 13:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did Damon Freeman license this image freely or does it require COM:OTRS permission for Commons? Leoboudv (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused user portrait 91.65.52.114 13:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope: picture of a non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small, no metadata, seems professionally shot, and a cropped version is published widely as Byron Williams's profile image. Evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder would need to go to COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

some homepage material, almost text only Motopark (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This poster needs an OTRS ticket 91.65.49.45 18:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope: picture of a non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

porque no se paso bien el archivo Roberto Van Troi Ramírez Garza (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Because i want to upload a new version of this picture. ETSIT UMA (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why we should need the 10.000s picture of an erect human penis - and like so often it is nor in an educational way usable, because it is simply of an exhebitionistc manor Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious "own work" with watermark/signature 91.65.49.45 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

can be write to wiki-text to some wikipedia, not a picture Motopark (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borrar este archivo ya que algunos, con ese mismo nombre pero distinta numeración romana, han sido elegidos por el administrador como candidatos para borrado y otros no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guritxu (talk • contribs) 2014-05-25T00:36:13‎ (UTC)


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

image from Google maps Threecharlie (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

can be write to wiki-text to some wikipedia, not a picture Motopark (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borrar este archivo ya que algunos, con ese mismo nombre pero distinta numeración romana, han sido elegidos por el administrador como candidatos para borrado y otros no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guritxu (talk • contribs) 2014-05-25T19:02:15‎ (UTC)


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

can be write to wiki-text to some wikipedia, not a picture Motopark (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borrar este archivo ya que algunos, con ese mismo nombre pero distinta numeración romana, han sido elegidos por el administrador como candidatos para borrado y otros no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guritxu (talk • contribs) 2014-05-25T00:34:45‎ (UTC)


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal picture without educational use. · Favalli00:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, out of scopeYmblanter (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like a photo of a photo. Source and license of the original photo or poster? Lupo 06:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Louvre pyramid is the photo's main subject. Its architect en:I. M. Pei, is still alive. Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in France. Storkk (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logo of the visual studio Luma Pictures, which is over the threshold of originality. There is no evidence the uploder is the copyright holder. User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 22:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Own work" seems very unlikely, looks half-toned and probably rephotographed from a display someplace. Jmabel ! talk 23:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong file name CeeGee (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Definitely not the author's own work. News outlets as far back as 2012 has been using the map. Source 舎利弗 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tachikoma keychain design is copyrighted per COM:CHAR and Commons:CB#Characters from books and films as "derivatives from copyrighted figures themselves, like dolls, action figures, t-shirts". Brainy J (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Good catch, Brainy J. This file should probably be deleted. Michael Barera (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

errore di caricamento Utentedae (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong file name CeeGee (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong file name CeeGee (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

this image is from a trailer of a British film not an American film it may not fall under the copyright tag given 69.124.39.237 04:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope: unused text contribution. BrightRaven (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

errore di caricamento Utentedae (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

errore di caricamento Utentedae (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope; unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong file name CeeGee (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Location information is necessary to ensure that freedom of panorama exemptions cover sculptures wherever this is located and that this image isn't violating the sculptor's copyright. Quite possibly, this is in the UK or Ireland, in which case it would be fine IMO, but a few google searches turned up nothing for me. Storkk (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope, previously used to vandalise page on WP Gbawden (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope; unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2080 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Per M:Legal and Community Advocacy/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge and per community consensus. We should not delete those files before the correct discussion is evaluated. Natuur12 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per M:Legal and Community Advocacy/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge and per community consensus. We should not delete those files before the correct discussion is evaluated. I'm really worried about this massive accion wanting to delete thousands of historic images that cost hundreds of working hours, and in most cases are imposible to recover. Isn't it sabotage?--Roblespepe (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Google books has the book published in 1990 if that is the case the image will still be copyright in the US, if the book was published in 1988 then the image will be copyright in the US if the book contained a copyright notice, either way proof of how this image entered the PD in the US is required for it to remain on commons. LGA talkedits 23:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 09:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be copyvio from http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/satabdi-art.html Same user copy/pasted text from same source to Wikipedia article. Rob (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright? Link it references as permission even says credit to Push.ph (also logo on the image), copyrighten website Lady Lotus (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal photo - out of scope. Note that it's not an actual slide either - the JPG compression artifacts are much worse in the picture than on the slide housing. Storkk (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I seriously doubt "own work". Higher resolution of same available at http://www.liveinternet.ru/journalshowcomments.php?jpostid=227696096&journalid=762167&go=next&categ=0 (about 3/4 of the way down the page). I believe this should be deleted as a copyright violation. Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is not a graffiti, but a mural. There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blurry. Better images do exist (for example File:Mur peint Bruxelle.jpg). BrightRaven (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Previously deleted by Fastily 30 May 2014, it's still a mural. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope; unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doubtful claim of own work. Cf. [1], that's the full version of this picture; there are more pictures of this car in the gallery. Brakehorsepower (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where is something said about the license at the source site? 88.77.2.79 02:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: this site seems to be the source, no copyright disclaimer → copyrighted and not valid for Commons.

Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

def. not own work. Maybe someone can come up with a free source? Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sculpture is not a part of FOP (Freedom of Panorma) in the Netherlands, it is placed on the private ground of museum Schokland, there must be paid for access Gouwenaar (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sculpture is not a part of FOP (Freedom of Panorma) in the Netherlands, it is placed om the private ground of museum Schokland, there must be paid for access Gouwenaar (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope. Nonsense fb/blog promotion ~ Nahid Talk 15:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent sculpture. No FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have an SVG file of the Russian flag. Fry1989 eh? 00:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

errore di caricamneto Utentedae (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I moved the file from en: but then realised that uploader isn't creator of file, there is no permission from photographer. Will tag the file on en: wiki as such. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small, no metadata, looks professionally shot, and previously published on the web. Evidence that uploader is copyright holder would need to be provided through COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal photo, out of scope, previously used to vandalise a page Gbawden (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploader says they created image in 2013. It appears what they mean is that they scanned an image in 2013, that was taken a long time ago, by an unknown person, for an unknown publication (probably a year book). Without any information on the original picture and photographer we can't use the image. Rob (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have an SVG file of the Crimean flag. Fry1989 eh? 00:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope; unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alexander Nikolaevich Volkov died in 1957, this painting is not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have an SVG file of the Crimean coat of arms. Fry1989 eh? 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal image; see COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

copyrighted image Maksim Sidorov 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Sftzed (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Derivative work. The Wikipedia logo and the Coronavirus are fine, but the Hajji Firuz, the fish and the sabzeh (plant) shown are most probably copyrighted. Searching "وکتور حاجی فیروز" in Google, I could find a link from pector.ir; the direct link is [2]. Although it is unavailable at the time, the thumbnail in Google shows exact the same Hajji Firuz (in the logo, there is a black line on his costume; that's a part of the watermark of the said website). From this link, it can be understood that the said website doesn't release its content under a free license, but rather sells them as products. The source of the fish and the sabzeh is not clear as well.

Ahmadtalk 16:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

سلام وکتور های ماهی و سبزه از [3] مطابق لینک ارائه شده بند 5 دارای مجوز هستند . اشاره دقیق برداشت از این طرح [4] درباره منبع حاجی فیروز با توجه به این که این طرح برای لوگو نوروز 99 ویکی فا در حال نظر خواهی است تقاضا دارم حذف نشود تا زمان پایان اجماع . اگر اجماع حاصل شود تصویر حاجی فیروز جایگزین خواهد Sftzed (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sftzed: سلام. در آن پیوند ([5])، چطور اثبات می‌شود که طرح‌های دریافت‌شده از آن وبگاه، تحت مجوز آزاد هستند؟ Ahmadtalk 15:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User here solely to spam his pictures and promote his websites via links and watermarks in images. See for example Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/01#Special:Contributions.2FPandaravadai DMacks (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY 09:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Andras0401

[edit]

Copyright works with no evidence of permission. Different cameras, different metadata, different photographer copyright information and numerous photographs which it is highly unlikely one individual user could create (satellite imagery etc). Nick (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Richter logo.jpg - incorrect claim of authorship. Should pass PD-logo and only mentioned here for completeness.

Deleted: FASTILY 09:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The text and the music of the anthem are public domain definitely. But I see no evidence that performing of the anthem is PD too. Neither I can access the link on descpage to check whether it was realized into PD somehow else. BaseSat (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It is official Ukrainian anthem, it is PD-UA-exempt as state symbol.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page has moved to http://static.rada.gov.ua/site/const/GimnUkraineVerevki.mp3 . The performance provided here is an official one, which is performed by the state Veryovka Chorus (founded by the Ukrainian Government), and it is usually this version that is performed in the parliament. This is an official recording of the anthem made by the Parliament of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada), and it should fall under {{PD-UA-exempt}} as a state symbol — NickK (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But do we have a law that official performance are automatically in public domain? I don't know such. The official symbol is the text and the music sheets (The Law about National Anthem of Ukraine), not a performance. The same as performance of folk music which is PD by the same article of the law as official symbols is protected by copyright too. Ukraine is not USA where almost anything in .gov sites is PD. --BaseSat (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Law about National Anthem of Ukraine falls under article 10c of the copyright law (official documents of a political, legislative or administrative nature), while the anthem itself falls under article 10d of the copyright law (State symbols of Ukraine). I would be quite surprised if government website had published a recording by a government-funded chorus that was not in public domain — NickK (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about copyright to the law, sure all Ukrainian laws' texts are in PD. I referred to this law because it gives the definition about what the national anthem is. And the anthem is not it's performance. So performance isn't a state symbol of Ukraine. Nor I see in the law version adapted to the chorus (I'm bad at music but I believe there must be done some creative non-trivial work to create chorus version of a song). --BaseSat (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
State symbol is whole song.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Song, true. Performence of a song isn't a song itself. --BaseSat (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the law, Державним Гімном України є національний гімн на музику М. Вербицького із словами першого куплету. The law defines that the anthem (state symbol) is the anthem with defined music and defined words. I wonder what else you can do with this definition in order to produce the anthem other than perform the music while singing the words. I am not sure whether this is a non-trivial adaptation for chorus, but in any case this adaptation was done by the government-owned chorus which is in charge of official performances of this anthem in the parliament. The parliament's website does not inform that this work is copyrighted by the chorus, the only restriction is При використанні даних обов’язкове посилання на сайт Верховної Ради України. It is really strange to suppose that parliament's website violates copyright of government's chorus, but even if you think this is the case, the correct action is to contact their website administrator in order to clarify the status — NickK (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goverment's site isn't under PD or free license. Nor is parliament's TV chanel Rada broadcast and nor are other things except for those which fall to PD by the article of the copyright law cited in PD-UA template. So I don't understand why do you consider goverment's chorus work as defaultly PD. For us it's not important that there are no "© All rights reserved" line. For us it's rather important that there are no line which allows any use/reuse/adaptation of the content including commertial. Can you link to the page on Parliament's website which states such conditions? The line you said about says nothing about commertial use which is essential for us. --BaseSat (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The parliament's website is under При використанні даних обов’язкове посилання на сайт Верховної Ради України, which corresponds to {{Attribution}} (check http://static.rada.gov.ua/site/const/ to make sure these are the terms of use of the page with the anthem) — NickK (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{Attribution}} is "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed." (italic mine). The Verkhovna Rada's site doesn't say about any purpose. There should be clear statement of that otherwise we cant assume that thay allow any use including commercial. --BaseSat (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This phrase does not impose any restrictions: if you say you can use it, it does not mean you cannot use it for commercial purposes. If there is a public domain material published on the website available under {{Attribution}}, published by a government entity with all authors working for the government, I do not see who is restricting the purpose of usage. If you still find that the confirmation is unclear, you may contact them for an OTRS permission, but I wonder who is violating copyright and whose copyright is being violated — NickK (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think e.g. this [15] verbatim is {{Attribution}} too? --BaseSat (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that it could be legitimately published under {{Attribution}}: either as a work made by an employee (where Parliament acts as an employer), or as публічне сповіщення публічно виголошених промов, звернень, доповідей та інших подібних творів (article 21.9 of the copyright law). Once again, you may ask the parliament about the nature of copyright relationships between the parliament and the deputies who are employees of the parliament if you find it relevant — NickK (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is your ground to consider that parliament's employees give up their copyright? If we extend that then per you we may consider all works by employees of budget sphere (most school and university teachers, doctors, scientists, etc.) did as part of their work as PD. It sounds like some communism or thing like that to me. The article 21.9 of the copyright law probably indeed covers that thing with verbatim but unfortunately it can't be applied to the nomination's subject. --BaseSat (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My ground is that the parliament is a sufficiently respectable institution in order not to violate the law they have adopted themselves. The difference between a teacher and a lawmaker is that teachers do not adopt laws, while parliament should normally abide the laws adopted by themselves. Your major doubt seems to be that the parliament did not have sufficient permission to publish this file under a license similar to {{Attribution}}, if you want to check under which conditions performers have permitted the parliament to use this file, you may try to ask the parliament and register their response via OTRS — NickK (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So teachers' works aren't PD just because they violate some law? --BaseSat (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but because instead of having one employer who is supposed to clearly know the copyright law and is interested in reproducing their works (i.e. the parliament) they have multiple employers who have generally nothing to do with their works (i.e. schools). I do believe however that if a school asks a teacher to make a recording of a public domain work as a part of his/her responsibilities, the school will be free to publish this work under a free license — NickK (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you refer per which article of which law you believe so? --BaseSat (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16 — NickK (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: As per NicKK Natuur12 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 00:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. I'm quite a newbie here and sorry for bringing you any trouble. However I drew this file mainly because I will be illustrating an ideology on my English and Chinese user page on Wikipedia, showing a Hong Kong without the influence of the Communist China. And perhaps other people will use this, too. Anyway thanks for paying attention to it. --Kou Dou (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Natuur12 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logo from a copyrighted website with no evidence that uploader has the right to license it under creative commons. Nv8200p (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author Attica Locke was award the Ernest J Gaines Award for Literary Excellence. The Baton Rouge Area Foundation had requested that she update her wikipedia entry to include the information about the award in a prominent way. They have authorized the fair use of the award logo in association with publicity related to the award. It is common for award giving entities to allow use of their copyrighted logos for this sort of publicity. (As an example see http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/usage-guide/Hugo_Logo_Usage_Guidelines.pdf). If needed we will seek explicit authorization for its use on Wikipedia or if Nv8200p desires clarification the organizers can be contacted directly at http://www.braf.org/index.cfm/form/contact.
    • The problem with this is that the CC BY-SA 3.0 license grants rights to use the logo far beyond fair use. The logo should be moved to Wikipedia and given a non-free logo tag and a fair use rationalization. Otherwise, the Gaines Award organization should submit permission for the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license through the OTRS system. -Nv8200p (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. The photo shows little detail of the aircraft, compared with others in the category "Unidentified aircraft". It also shows nothing of the airport it claims to be taken at. Per Commons:Project scope: "examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" include "files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep of course this high quality image is usable on Wikimedia projects. Magnolia is incorrectly connecting existing guidelines with images. This is very close to Vandalism. -- User:Henry.g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.237.121 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hey 178.7.237.121, you've made 14 edits in your four days on Wikimedia Commons, and now you cast a vote with the rationale--let me get this right--that by quoting the image guidelines I'm "incorrectly connecting existing guidelines with images". Is that correct? Magnolia677 (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I say that you do not have a casic understanding of the guideline you are quoting. Your way of argumentation is stupid and shows that you do not have some basic understanding of Wikimedia. Your great knowledge might be needed for the photographs in this category: Category:Penis - there you might find out of scope images. User:Henry.g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.237.121 (talk • contribs)
 Keep: Borderline case, but this is the only image of this kind of airplane from the front perspective from that airport.    FDMS  4    03:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um...the photo doesn't show any of "that airport". It shows a random airplane surrounded by blue sky. So what difference does it make where it was taken? If there are a hundred pictures of a dolphin taken from the front, and I add another which shows a dolphin--taken from the front--and surrounded by blue sea, I'm not sure I'd argue my picture was unique because of the location I claimed to have taken it. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning, but as I said, this is a borderline case in my eyes. The context might be important in some cases.    FDMS  4    04:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original Flickr image was called "IMG_0076", and was placed in an album entitled "Flughafen Nürnberg". That's it for contextual information about the photo. It shows a single-engine aircraft with illegible markings--from the front--against a blue sky. I'm not trying to be difficult, but could you please provide two examples of how "the context might be important"? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say that it is true that the airport is not visible, but still it might matter that this photo was shot at the airport.    FDMS  4    05:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of the hundreds of photos I've uploaded from Flickr, I've double-checked and confirmed the location of each using Google satellite or street view. And many times I have forsaken a fabulous photo because I was not prepared to trust the location identified by the Flickr user. My assumption of good faith extends only to Wiki users. This is a photo of an unidentified aircraft...someplace. It is also of a lower quality than the hundreds of photos already in the "unidentified aircraft" category. As I stated already, "examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" include "files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Absolutely no reason to delete this image which is actually in reference to quality standards surely above average. --High Contrast (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The photo is big and sharp, but the plane is still unidentified. If it remains unidentified, then it is impossible to use it in any educational way. If kept, I suggest to make a heavy crop, where most of sky is cropped away. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Sorry, but what you are saying seems a bit problematic and shows that you did not understand what a free media repository is. To your 'arguments': there is absolutely no time step given which allows images to stay in 'unidentified' categories. It usually takes a long time for unidentified Commons images to get detailled information or correct categirzation. In addition, there is no need to crop this one. I point it out again, this image does not violate any commons guidelines - in contrast to those many penis selfies in the category I have linked above.
If you dislike the "penis selfies" and other amateur porn so much, nominate it for deletion, as I did here. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No reason for deleting. --Ailura (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is used on a Wikipedia article.

  • weak keep. The assumption that because the plane can't be identified it must be useless is rather questionable not to say a non sequitur. However having said that, you probably can argue that an identifiable plane might be better and if Commons has enough of those from reasonably a similar perspective already, then "files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". But there is the "if" and the whole argument apllied on this case seems a bit contrived to me right now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No consensus to delete this file as out of scope. I'm following the consensus Natuur12 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 00:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. Same reason as what I said at the deletion request of Flag of Hong Kong without the five stars and lines.svg. It simply represents an idea, a Macau without being influenced by the Red China. So this is indeed instructional/educational, and is not a meaningless vector. Thanks. --Kou Dou (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope Natuur12 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This photo documentating the biggest squad in czech republic, "Hotel Máj" in city of Ústí nad Labem... --Safranek-interia.eu (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Achim (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a photograph of a text that was in all likelyhood indoors, and thus not subject to FOP. It is a poem, and thus not simple enough to be free from copyright. Vera (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sure was indoors, but I did have permission of the shopholder tot take this photograph. Regards, Bic (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright of the poem lies with Maarten 't Hart though. --Vera (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't find the source and its licence 91.65.49.45 18:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems to be : [16]. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No evidence of a free license Natuur12 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search for "rigmor zobel" turns up w:da:Rigmor Zobel (a Danish businesswoman). I've no idea if that's the same person though, aged 15. If it is, it's presumably within project scope. —Microchip08 (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes, I found her as well. I don't think the age fits. The image is from '84 and I can't really see much resemblances between the two. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Plain advertisement with address and phone number, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not realistically useful for an encyclopedic or educational purpose - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This file seems to be a screencap of one of the multitude of Webdriver Torso videos, which have probably got sufficient media coverage to be notable on Wikipedia (nobody's created an article though, so  Delete). —Microchip08 (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! That brings up the fact that those videos seem to be released under the standard youtube (commons-incompatible) license, however the screencap consists solely of simple geometric shapes, so it may be ineligible for copyright. Storkk (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

not complete Pokharelujjwal (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


not complete Pokharelujjwal (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

want to upload newer version Pokharelujjwal (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload a new version over the current version by clicking here
(I merged your three headers into one for ease of reading. Hope you don't mind :)) --Brainy J (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be the work of the uploader. No permission for recognizable picture of person in a private setting (appears to be a photo studio). Ahecht (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)  Delete long list of (c)vios. Own work claim is nonsense. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be the work of the uploader. No permission for recognizable picture of person in a private setting (appears to be a photo studio). Ahecht (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Own work claim is humbug. Gamya was named Miss Sri Lanka 2009 on July 22, 2009. You don't wait half a year to upload the image. Other uploads suspicious as well. Long list of (c)vios. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be the work of the uploader. No permission for use. Ahecht (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as above --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is not the official design; I worry it could cause confusion as it was submitted as a potential official design to Quidditch Canada. Danachos (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Fry1989 eh? 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use so it should not be deleted as out of scope. If there are any copyrightconcerns please nominate it again Natuur12 (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

On the pic is en:Imran Khan (singer) not the User:Anmjb. I think the pic is from a copy from Internet Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  08:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also, any deleted images of the same User -> User talk and log of Anmjb --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  08:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fake license. Contribution of this user contains variety of historical photo of different origins mentioned as "own work" - it's impossible. Bilderling (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative work of the copyrighted character; not de minimis.

Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Devanshi tripathi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These graphics appear in http://njsanders.people.wm.edu/130A/Lindahl.pdf (author: Nick Sanders), to which accompanying text is cited. Thus, I suggest, they are the work of teh aforementioned Nick Sanders, and used without permission.

Jarry1250 (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Devanshi tripathi (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

Previous deletion requests (1; 2/ongoing) have suggested that the uploader is not familiar with copyright law, and copies diagrams such as these from other sources. Images are of poor quality (and hence low EV) and oddly cropped.

Jarry1250 (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arne Quinze is alive. No FOP in Belgium.

BrightRaven (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I see no info that says that the painting pictured is free BaseSat (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author is Wikipedian. I will ask him about this picture. --Nickispeaki (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice. --BaseSat (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Я автор світлини, репродукція якої на даному фото. У мене нема заперечень щодо того, щоб дане фото було розміщене на Вікісховищі як ілюстрація до відповідної статті у Вікіновинах, тому пропоную не вилучати її з Вікісховища. --Star61 (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Star61, Чи погоджуєтесь ви також на будь-яке, у тому числі й комерційне використання цього фото будь-де відповідно до ліцензії Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported? --BaseSat (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: com:DW Natuur12 (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Pandaravadai (talk · contribs)

[edit]

As explained here on the Commons Village Pump, there was concern that these photos would fall outside of COM:SCOPE and so I'm bringing it to DR so as to have some community review.

TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all. To extend what I mentioned on Commons Village Pump linked above, these images all have visible watermarks promoting the uploader's websites. The images have only ever been used in userspace (and occasionally cross-userspace, either sock-puppets or pure spam, don't care which) or dumped en masse onto en.wp articles (in violation of their gallery style-guide and due to the seeming spammy nature of user blanketing articles with images promoting his own website). DMacks (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 5 of them are used in an article so I kept those and deleted the others. Natuur12 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Now orphaned (except userspace):

Someone with an admin bit might want to gather the usernames of the uploaders of these files. There is probably a nice sockdrawer full of various spellings. DMacks (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Now orphaned (except userspace):

DMacks (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Pandaravadai (talk · contribs)

[edit]

As many times before, Commons is not a private photo album or for images advertising your website in-image. Here's a new batch uploaded today:

DMacks (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. INeverCry 01:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The text in the photo seems to be not free. BaseSat (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Текст, репродукція якого на даному фото, розміщений на моїй персональній фотовиставці. У мене нема заперечень щодо того, щоб дане фото було розміщене на Вікісховищі як ілюстрація до відповідної статті у Вікіновинах, тому пропоную не вилучати її з Вікісховища. --Star61 (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Star61, Чи погоджуєтесь ви також на будь-яке, у тому числі й комерційне використання цього фото будь-де відповідно до ліцензії Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported? --BaseSat (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: [com:DW]] Natuur12 (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gente nro 877

[edit]

The Argentine magazine "Gente" was distributed in the US by Atlantic Network inc. 720 5th ave RM 602 New York 19019 (USPS 502-950) in the 1980's and there is no reason to assume they did not comply with the US copyright notice requirements, therefore these images will be copyright in the US. LGA talkedits 09:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: This is not about the URAA, those files where never PD in the first place. Those Argentina files will remain te be problematic. Natuur12 (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not free. Downloaded from a website with restrictive terms of use. Damiens.rf 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Per Amitie 10g. (Simple shape, not texlogo) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously part of a mass deletion nomination which was withdrawn by the nominator (Commons:Deletion requests/PD-AR-Photo de la Guerra de Malvinas). So here I am nominating an individual image. This was first published in Argentina in 1987, so it was still copyrighted on the URAA restoration date. This will be copyrighted in the US until at least 1/1/2053 (if the photographer -- not identified here, but possibly listed in the original publication -- died in 1982) and possibly far longer. It's PD in Argentina, and so I think it can be copied to Wikilivres since Canada uses the rule of the shorter term. cmadler (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Technical kept. I reopened the main discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/PD-AR-Photo de la Guerra de Malvinas 2, the discussion of all files will be held there Cambalachero (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

When "La Guerra de las Malvinas" was published it had a copyright notice, therefore this image will still be copyright in the US. LGA talkedits 08:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 19:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacks proof that when it was first published, it was done so without copyright notice and is therefore {{PD-US-1978-89}} LGA talkedits 08:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep: I did a search of the United States Copyright Office's listings from 1978 to 1989 but could find nothing. That clearly shows that no registration whatsoever was applied for this when it was created in 1983 (or in the following five years), which is precisely what {{PD-US-1978-89}} states. Illegitimate Barrister 08:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read en:Copyright Act of 1976#Registration and deposit you will see that registration was not required after 1978 and only required for works published without a notice, (as you will see if you re-read {{PD-US-1978-89}}), so to be {{PD-US-1978-89}} requires proof that when it was first published it was done so without the notice, absent such proof, the COM:PRP should apply and the file should be deleted. LGA talkedits 08:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I'd also like to mention that the Attorney General of Minnesota states that "Private individuals can reproduce the State Seal for their own purposes" per Minnesota Statute 1.135, subd. 4 (1983 supp.), which states that it does not "prohibit the enlargement, proportioned reduction, or embossment of the seal for its use in official acts." The A.G. also goes on to state that it "suggests the private enlargement, reduction or embossment of the seal by private citizens is not prohibited." Also, the current state seal adopted in 1983 is a slight alteration of the one dating back from the late 1850s, which would make it a derivative work, thus qualifying it as public domain not only under under {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but {{PD-US}} and {{PD-old}} as well. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 10:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"-NC" restrictions like the "Private individuals" requirement are not allowed on commons. A derivative work creates a new copyright. But this is all irrelevant, becouse when you up-loaded the file YOU made the claim (via {{PD-US-1978-89}}) that it was first published without a copyright notice, please provide the evidence to support that claim. LGA talkedits 10:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep — Wow, I didn't think it would be hard to find a document authored by the State of Minnesota, with the post-1983 seal, published before March 1, 1989, but without a copyright notice. However, the Minnesota Public Documents Division must have really been on the ball during this time period as almost every official document I examined with the seal in question also had a clear unambiguous copyright statement. I had to scrounge through some really obscure State of Minnesota publications, but I finally was able to find a qualifying document. In 1987 the Minnesota Dept. of Employee Relations, Equal Opportunity Division published State of Minnesota Affirmative Action Report 1987, Minn. Pub. Number 87-0444. The cover has the seal, and the document does not have a copyright notice. I did a search of the U.S. Copyright Catalog, but I did not find a registration for this document, so this document and the seal in question are eligible for {{PD-US-1978-89}}. You can find it a copy in the library via OCLC 11906674. —RP88 13:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you point out, "as almost every official document I examined with the seal in question" since that is allowed for in (405 (1)) it does not invalidate the copyright, the copyright still stands. LGA talkedits 21:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting my statement, there was no second printing of Minn. Pub. Number 87-0444, every copy of Minn. Pub. Number 87-0444 lacks a copyright statement. As such the Title 17 § 405 (a) (1) "non-invalidation of copyright due to omission of notice from a relatively small number of copies" clause is not applicable to this document. —RP88 23:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No you misunderstand me, of the total number of documents with the seal and correct copyright notice this one document (and all its copies) make up a relatively small number of copies of the logo. LGA talkedits 23:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I understand the point you are making, although I still disagree, as I am aware of no case law that agrees with your rather expansive reading of that clause. I also think your interpretation appears to be at odds with Commons practice regarding "US no notice" tags (not to say that Commons is particularly consistent in this area). For example, Commons regularly allows "no notice" publicity photos if the uploader can demonstrate that the source document lacks a copyright notice, even though those publicity photos undoubtedly appear in many many other documents that do have notice. —RP88 23:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This is clearly abusive and harassment after the outcome of this unDr. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete As the above !vote is clearly abusive and harassment for prior contact with the nominator. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And how does my !vote have any bearing on the status of this image? This is an abusive DR, filed immediately after the file was undeleted under process, which the nominator participated in and their arguments were not accepted as a reason to keep the image deleted. Fry1989 eh? 18:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see how this works. Off topic votes for me, but not for thee. Funny how you always seem to have a reason to why the DR is invalid whenever you disagree with it. Or maybe you could actually address the deletion rationale for once (just once!) instead of making ad hominem arguments. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to point out non-existent hypocrisy will get you nowhere. The fact is this file just underwent an unDR process and the nominator participated in it. It was decided to keep it undeleted. Immediately renominating it for deletion is obviously abusive and any user has a right to point that out. You on the other hand are simply saying "delete it because I don't like Fry for pointing out this file just received approval in unDR" out of spite. Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentPlease confine any personal grievances to user talk pages. Deletion requests are not venues to vent disputes; that's what the noticeboard is for. Please do not disrupt deletion requests to make a point. Also, voting to have a file deleted simply because somebody one does not like a user who voted the opposite way is unhelpful, may get files deleted that do not need to be, and is contrary to the spirit of Commons. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 14:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm surprised an admin needs to be told that. Fry1989 eh? 18:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per LGA's reasoing. It's a shame, but there doesn't seem to be any explicit evidence declaring this file to be freely licensed under a Commons-compatible license FASTILY 08:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]