Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/10/12

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 October 12th, 2014
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The license states that ist to those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. But the picture has been drawn by "Fips", i.e. en:Philipp Rupprecht, who died in 1975. Thus the licensing is not correct. Assayer (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Non-controversial deletion with the concurrence of the uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

self promotion, Out of project scope Aftab (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: personal photographs or group photographs are not allowed to the contest. please read Commons:Bangla Wikipedia Photography Contest 2014/Rules and FAQ ~ Nahid Talk 10:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation Y.haruo (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Movie poster. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation Y.haruo (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Movie poster. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 needs to be cropped, and could be done in text, so probably out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Non-free software screenshot. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Moni desuza (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Collection of 72 unused images showing User:Moni desuza himself. If one searches google for "moni desuza" and skips hits from wiki, facebook, g+ and youtube (slide shows) there remains nothing left. He obviously intends to use commons as an additional storage of his self-portraying image collection.

Achim (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: (speedydeleted) copyright violations and out of scope (promotional content) -- Steinsplitter (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

posible violación del copyright desde http://rumbadiamante.com/pages/show_page/312/Stephanie-Cayo Tarawa1943 (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio ~ Nahid Talk 17:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

They are derivative works of photographs by unknown authors from a family archive.

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Kolpakov1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, mysterioulsy watermarked, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Kolpakov1 (eventually reuploads of previously deleted files).

Gunnex (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Rajeshbieee (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Agreed. Note also that the first of these is a PDF and PDF images are discouraged. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete. I will upload a jpeg image or png image of the same photograph. The photographs can be detected only in facebook where the page is maintained by myself. Those are rare photographs of Malayalam actor Shankar where I own the collections personally. I need to upload more photos of the same actor from his films and personal life. Please guide me.

Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you own copies of the photographs does not make you the owner of the copyrights or give you the right to license them freely. You have admitted that these are not actually "own work" as you claimed in the descriptions. They cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the actual photographers, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Rajeshbieee (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The user has been uploading all sorts of webgrabs with minor modifications here and on en.wiki as their own work. One old account was blocked on en.wiki User talk:Rajeshbiee for the same reason. The Julian Directing image was shot in Australia, while the rest are part of a professional photoshoot series. These are the only ones here that I haven't been able to find the sources for, though the Julian directing image is definitely part of this set

SpacemanSpiff 17:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per above and reliability issues with uploader. WJBscribe (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

some unknown person, small picture size, no EXIF-data Motopark (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Valenzuela.jm (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of photo.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Valenzuela.jm (talk · contribs)

Looks like collection of official photos. Could be found on other web sites.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lowest quality image, part of a bunch of low quality exhebistionistic images by the uploader. No educational use imaginable. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lowest quality image, part of a bunch of low quality exhebistionistic images by the uploader. No educational use imaginable. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lowest quality image, part of a bunch of low quality exhebistionistic images by the uploader. No educational use imaginable. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lowest quality image, part of a bunch of low quality exhebistionistic images by the uploader. No educational use imaginable. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Garrykainth (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Garrykainth (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, thats ordinary spam in PDF form. --Martin H. (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Kamolu ivan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability with images of unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability with images of unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability with images of unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability with images of unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability with images of unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability with images of unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Yos-adi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability with images of unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysteriously black bordered (1st version) and watermarked. Uploaded in 03.2014, previously published via (example) http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2010/12/31/richard-sambrook/ (2010) = http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_V0STYuOSC3A/TR2ILvOxNnI/AAAAAAAAAEM/yMOhEtNgZ2c/s1600/richard-sambrook-s.jpg Gunnex (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 02:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear copyright status. This photo - uploaded by 1-upload-user Philo504 (talk · contributions · Statistics) in a cropped version - was used for a political campaign of fr:Yann Galut in 2012 ("La page Facebook pour la campagne 2012 de Yann Galut"), previously published on one of his official Facebook pages, screenshotted by a related webdesigner via https://www.facebook.com/clic.en.berry/photos/o.171157488964/10151069851820690/?type=1&theater (2012). Gunnex (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it: Tagged with copyvio via official Google+ via https://plus.google.com/116346891425189167602/photos/photo/5679428710525506946?pid=5679428710525506946&oid=116346891425189167602 (2011). Gunnex (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 03:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 signature on this drawing does not appear to match the name of the uploader. If the drawing is not in fact the work of the uploader himself, then we need a license from the artist using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source is [1]: wrong license, wrong author. Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

one source image is missing, author attribution missing for at least 5 images Denniss (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small size, no EXIF data, permission needed. Yann (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 TomahawkBRAWL (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 TomahawkBRAWL (talk · contribs)

[edit]

complex logos, not own work as claimed.

Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No such image at the link mentioned, no permission. Yann (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Saman hakimi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 showing "Rolf" (Deutsche Post mascot)

[edit]

Almost certainly not an "Amtliches Werk" in Germany – that's for literary works such as laws only. See also Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. The cartoon figure also doesn't look simple enough for {{PD-shape}}.

El Grafo (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small size, no EXIF data, may not be own work. Yann (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfree Soviet monument, no FoP for sculpture in Russia. A.Savin 18:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 03:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Self promotion and out of project scope. --Moheen Reeyad (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable person's image, Unused ~ Nahid Talk 19:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 DeoEr697 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, several indicated authors involved.


Gunnex (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Jarah Design (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:COPYVIO: No source is given, these are listed as user's own work when they are paintings by Muhammed Arif,COM:COPYVIO: No source is given, this is listed as user's own work when it is an apparent promotional piece containing a painting by Muhammed Arif, (1937-2009) a well-known Kurdish painter. a well-known living Kurdish painter.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 13:13, 2 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.

Files uploaded by Jarah Design (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Per 1st nomination (see above). Reproductions of artworks by Muhammed Arif, (1937-2009) a Kurdish painter, needing permission via COM:OTRS. The rest of the are files (related to actors) unlikely to be own works: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.

Gunnex (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


deleted. INeverCry 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Melha (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Small size, no EXIF data, user blocked for copyvios (see talk page), unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing by Ellin Beltz. DR closed by Josve05a (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Rangakuvara (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No indication of user's own work on this series of faculty portraits, papers, pictures from meetings, pictures of awards/trophies, academic photographs and so on. Small sizes, poor quality and that I found 3/4 of the first ones I looked for (sent separately to speedy) combine to indicate this is an internet collection without attribution rather than own work.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Professional shot of a famous personality, small size, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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, looks like a holiday-shot. Commons is not Facebook, please. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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, looks like a holiday-shot. Commons is not Facebook, please. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:

--Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argh… @Túrelio and INeverCry: well, I agree that most of these files are out of scope, but they were deleted not according procedure. They had not 'Delete' template, but should had it. WLM Ukraine orgcom monitors deletions of WLM files but these files were out of our attention due to lack of template. So, you should do according procedure.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation, see [2] Magnolia677 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation, see [3] Magnolia677 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation, see [4] Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is uploader -- this is not a selfie, so we will need a license from the actual photographer. Also we will need to know whether all of the art in the image is the work of the uploader. If not, we will also need licenses from the artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is uploader -- this is not a selfie, so we will need a license from the actual photographer. Also we will need to know whether all of the art in the image is the work of the uploader. If not, we will also need licenses from the artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is uploader -- this is not a selfie, so we will need a license from the actual photographer. Also we will need to know whether all of the art in the image is the work of the uploader. If not, we will also need licenses from the artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is uploader -- this is not a selfie, so we will need a license from the actual photographer. Also we will need to know whether all of the art in the image is the work of the uploader. If not, we will also need licenses from the artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is uploader -- this is not a selfie, so we will need a license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Our uploader, User:Riecepolitics, claims that this is his or her own work. It looks to me like a formal studio portrait and therefore probably not actually our uploader's work. It also appears on at least one web site with an explicit copyright notice. For both reasons, we will need a license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although I certainly understand that we assume good faith, I am very suspicious when we get a very high quality studio portrait that is "own work" of an editor that has uploaded only this one image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Medium size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 14:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Krd 07:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The uploader is not the creator, but the agency EPA/ALGER, Com:PCP. Ras67 (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Krd 07:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:DW? Yann (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Krd 07:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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's not Melha's own work, it's from here. Unclear copyright, Com:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Krd 07:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 is clearly by Google Till (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Krd 07:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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. Sammyday (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Krd 07:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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's not Melha's own work, unclear copyright, Com:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . Krd 07:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of the actually used file VogelKamerad.jpg Gemini79 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: . Krd 07:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 child image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 11:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional and out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 12:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 12:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 12:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 12:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 12:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 12:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 12:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 plenty of photos of penises with cock rings in Category:Cock rings. This one is out-of-focus and of low quality, therefore can be deleted per COM:PENIS. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:01, 5 December 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.

Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per request Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: .


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

Copyright violation. The uploader is not the original author of this drawing. Christophe Dioux (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Tineye found a version with an alleged modification date in 2007. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original author's name is JIHO. I think he is from Belgium or France, not from Germany. A research with his name on Google images [5] shows many other drawings, all of them with manuscript texts in french. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion Krd 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File is not the uploader's "own work". Feel free to click here to see proof of why this file is nominated for deletion. DLindsley (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation, see [6] Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, your source confirms NASA. The license CC-BY-SA is dubious, maybe add a "license review request". –Be..anyone (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, Licence corrected according to NASA copyright policy: This file is in the public domain because it was solely created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". (See Template:PD-USGov, NASA copyright policy page or JPL Image Use Policy.) NEEMOXIX (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion Krd 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 photographed map is most likely not compatible with commons' license policies as it is most likely not free licensed. -Excolis (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: COM:DW of nonfree content Krd 18:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

personality rights and out of scope Wuselig (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: and copyvio Krd 18:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 an Israel Defense Forces' unit - Cannot be considered a Free File. May be used only under Fair Use, hence, should be deleted from the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 an Israel Defense Forces' unit - Cannot be considered a Free File. May be used only under Fair Use, hence, should be deleted from the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Geo Swan as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: reason=On second thought... Alan (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: No valid reason for teh speedy deletion. If here apply the FOP un USA,  Keep. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a good faith uploader makes a mistake, like uploading two images that are very similar, and they request one image to be deleted, I believe we normally honor that kind of speedy request, even if the image was released under a free license -- because we trust their judgment that they are too similar, or for several other reasons. My apologies if it wasn't clear that I was the uploader, and I had uploaded that image just an hour or two prior to the tagging. I thought "on second thought" implied that. Geo Swan (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Per Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion (General Reasons > 7. Author or uploader request deletion: Original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content.) BR --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: uploader request Krd 18:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 iOS home screen. De minimis does not apply to this image as is since a picture could have been taken with the screen turned off (or blurred). RJaguar3 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inaccurate depiction (Should be bipedal) Should not be used - author request ArthurWeasley (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Files are in use and/or licences can not be revoked russavia (talk) 04:15, 11 June 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.

As per requests by author. This image is very inaccurate (quadrupedal, improper anatomy), is not used on any articles (although on some user pages), and much better variants (File:Poposaurus gracilis.jpg, File:Poposaurus gracilis (1).jpg) are available to use. This image is therefore out of commons project scope, and should be deleted. Also, because of the previous request being kept because "license cannot be revoked", the author has found wikimedia commons overly frustrating and has left the project, no longer contributing his fantastic images. IJReid (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: allready marked with {{Inaccurate paleoart}} and still in use. --JuTa 17:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per previous nomination by me. I think this was a premature keep. I do not think that use on user pages qualifies as usage, and the fact that it is tagged as inaccurate should be proof that this image constitutes an unneeded inaccurate image. The uploader requested its deletion, and if this cannot be deleted for any other reason, could this at least qualify a courtesy deletion. @FunkMonk: , a commons administrator, knows of the frustrations the original uploader experienced, and also is very knowledgable of commons policies about deletions. IJReid (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a Commons rule that says that images in any kind of use, even on talk pages, should not be deleted. AW did not frame his original DR specifically as a courtesy deletion, so we cannot really do so retroactively, though he did say "author request" at the end. But I am sympathetic to your concern. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, then many other deletion requests should not have passed, mainly because of use on a talk page or archive? I, at least, think that usage on archives or user/talk pages shouldn't count as usage, mostly because user pages are supposed to only be edited by the user, archives are not supposed to be edited, and similar to user pages, someone should not just go to random user's talk pages to remove an image, which will likely result in the image being replaced. Also, as in the previous deletion request by me, one of the reasons for keeping was that the image was already tagged with the inaccurate paleo template. This should not be a reason for keeping, as being tagged as inaccurate does not stop many non-english users from using the image, and unless it will be corrected, inaccurate images are going to keep accumulating, even while the paleoart reviews on the english wiki are active. Btw, not related to the request, some multilingual users, like yourself FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, Rextron, and maybe some others I do not know of, should start image reviews on other wikis, well, at least ones that have constant images flowing in. IJReid (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Actually I intended to add a {{Keep}} here, but the source page only offers CC-BY-NC-ND. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was uploaded here under another license by the owner. As for local palaeoart review pages, I don't think it's necessary, most people on other wikis can read English. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as before. --Krd 18:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately, Congo has no Freedom of Panorama for modern monuments or buildings Leoboudv (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The monument may be a close call on TOO, but I am inclined to think it would have a copyright in most countries -- I doubt that anybody can define the ToO in the DRC. The building certainly has a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this helps but here is the copyright. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to show this image. Is an obelisk really an unique piece of architecture? Is a square or plaza? Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The monument is not quite a classic obelisk, so, as I said, it probably has a copyright, but I agree that it is a close call. It is not, by the way, architecture, but sculpture, which has different rules in many countries, including the USA. The building, though, clearly has a copyright, or at least had one if its architect died before 1964. That makes your image a derivative work which infringes the architect's copyright. If you think the architect died before 1964 (the DRC is 50 years p.m.a.) it's up to you to prove it beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I'm new to this and until reading about Freedom of Panorama had no idea such a thing actually existed. I'll switch this image with another one of the Kindu ones. It is very sad to learn these laws exist though... just amazing though that the image of a public space and a public building paid for (I assume) by the Congolese people can be made into private property.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Jameslwoodward), just to get some clarity here because I edit a lot of pages related to the DR Congo, does this mean that any sort of images of building in DR Congo should be deleted from commons? Please see N'djili Airport for example and let me know if any of the four images on that page of the airport's terminals or tower would be considered a copyright violation and if not, why? Thanks again for your help.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the official explanation, please read COM:FOP, but I'll take a shot at it. In almost every country, all created works that are not strictly utilitarian have a copyright. This includes architecture (both architectural drawings and renderings and the actual buildings as constructed), sculpture (including most monuments), paintings and other graphic works, and, of course, text. The copyright lasts for many years, which varies from country to country.
You are certainly aware that you cannot take a copyrighted book out of a library, make copies, and sell the copies for profit -- that would infringe the author's copyright. Exactly the same law prohibits you from taking a photograph of any other copyrighted work -- building, sculpture, painting, whatever -- and selling it for profit. In many countries, but by no means all, special exceptions to the general rule I stated above, exceptions which we call "Freedom of Panorama", allow use of images of some or all copyrighted works that are permanently in a public place.
Since the DRC has no FOP exception in its copyright law, Commons cannot accept uploads of images of any created work unless the author (painter, sculptor, architect, etc.) has been dead for fifty years.
I would say that three of the images of N'djili Airport are problems. The night image is a tough call, as perhaps not enough of the building is visible to make it a problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion Krd 18:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Щербаков4 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Headstones: no FoP in Russia for sculptures, others: not own works but derivatives.

カザフ (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 (the image is copyrighted) Elmor (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 06:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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) 06:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

not PD-chem, more conform alternative File:Aluminum citrate.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete It's intrinsically PD, whether the uploader recognizes and tags it as such or not (compare {{PD-chem}} saying "ineligible for copyright" with {{PD-self}} making an explicit release). But I agree that this image itself is poor (oddly aligned atoms vs bonds, not very large) whereas the proposed replacement is up to current MOS. DMacks (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion Krd 18:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just grabbed from the web ([7] [8]). Eusebius (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 file named as "Гимн антирашистов" (English - Hymn of people who are against Russia). But on the photo the is undefined man, who something says. It's not a hymn (audiofile), file assumes no informative value. Brateevsky {talk} 08:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file name is in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. A photo showing a singer who is caught at the moment of performance is typical. This photo shows a professional singer at the moment of creating a song. For example, "Ямщик, не гони лошадей"

"Ямщик, не гони лошадей!" (“Coachmen, do not rush the horses”), a famous Russian song. — cheloVechek / talk 19:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support out of scope. The deletion request is about the file, not its name. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope Krd 18:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 is not necessary. 尐 exists. Good afternoon (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 by Nuriafmix

[edit]

posible spam publicitario Tarawa1943 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep As "spam" or "promotional" are not valid reasons to remove anything from commons. It could be  Delete as the permission of each of the pictures is far from being clear. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 16:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unclear permission, COM:OTRS required Krd 18:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files of User:Vaidasklimas

[edit]

All files by User:Vaidasklimas. All are commercial advertisements uploaded as own-work cc-by-sa-3.0. Appear to be copyrighted works uploaded with an incorrect license tag. --Ceosad (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 18:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 map violate copyright as it is taken from a map which is not a free image. [9] I would add that this map does not seem to have any significance, and at the time it is not used anywhere. As a result, deleting the map does no harm. Lilic (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: According to your words this map does nt violate copyright as it based on other free map in Commons (this one is free). But other source mentioned in the file. Anyway, I dont see reason to delete. -- Geagea (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 by Government of Sri Lanka (PD 50 years after death of last author, no execptions for Official or Government Works). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Official_works - The exception for government and other works is very limited: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 6 and 7, no protection shall be extended under this Part. Share Bear (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: section 6 applies Jcb (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Obi2canibe as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not uploader's own work, military unit badge Steinsplitter (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by Yann as Derivative of non-free content.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 map at the top appears to have been traced from the copyrighted map at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/sutton-valence-castle/history-and-research/. The satellite imagery at the bottom is almost certainly not the author's original work. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 sourcing for the underlying map is not given, but it appears to be a scanned version of a commercial road map, and almost certainly under copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No valid UK license given; a photograph taken in the UK in 1905 may very well still be under copyright in the UK, depending on the date of the photographer's death. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacking any coherent description to make it useful. Richard Avery (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

text only, can be written to wikipedia, some homepage material, wikipedia are not place to CV.list Motopark (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 this file Histograma_wiki.png has an error (it informs 0.5 md/dL although the correct is 5 mg/dL) and the author already uploaded a new (fixed) version as Histograma_wiki1.png Sampayu msg 14:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 vanity shot, out of scope Richard Avery (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copy of https://www.facebook.com/DiomayOfficiel/photos/pb.310645540091.-2207520000.1413125293./10153186638125092/?type=3&theater Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: Please research before nominating! The file has been uploaded to Commons in May 25 of 2013, and three monts later (August 25) to Facebook, and doing a Google image search, the only result of the picture is in Commons. The account of the uploader seems to belong to the artist, and the picture in Facebook corresponds to the official page of the artist there.
Also, the file is in use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The file does not seem to be in use. It does not look like a selfie, as claimed, so we need a license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 María Moreno A (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Books of questionable notability. Text should be moved to Wikibooks.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Pedromariabl (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Uploader is not the photographer of the old images. And of none of them we know the age or original photographer, so we did not know, if the real photographer is dead since more than 70 years. Coat of arms is not to find in the web, but as all the other uploads of this user are copyvios, this will be too (newer images get speedy deletion requests).

Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both José Augusto Correia de Campos and Victor Hugo Duarte de Lemos are my great-great grandparents so all the photos I've upload, are photos from my house which have no copyright. The coat of arms is not on the internet but it was registered in 1776 by Francisco de Paula da Cunha Maldonado d' Athayde de Barahona (an ancestry of mine), and as I have the right to use it, I therefore have a right to upload a photo of it (I guess...). Stop deleting my uploads, if you please.


Deleted: The fact that the subjects were great-great-grandparents does not make you the copyright holder of the images -- that belongs to the photographers' heirs. The copyright to the CoA belongs to the person who actually drew it, so the fact that it was registered a long time ago is not important. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 seems to be the motif - so she can't be the photographer, a she said in the description. At also seems to be taken from an agency website. We don't know, if the user have a right to use these images. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scanned picture (magazine, newspaper ?) ; look at the details : deformation of the right part, dots due to printing... Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 16:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source is [10]: wrong license, wrong author. Yann (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

improper file name Saumiguel (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copy here. Yann (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

PIcture scanned from magazine or newspaper : see dots due to printing Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 16:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Picture scanned from magazine or newspaper : see dots due to printing Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 16:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 commercial advertisement, out of project scope (Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Advertising or self-promotion.) Ies (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 am sorry. Contemporary architecture, FoP Germany only valid from public street, no aerial views from balloons etc., see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Commerzbank-Arena (deleted). Would be OK if the building was just part of cityscape on the photo, but it is the only feature. A.Savin 18:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Public buildings are architectural works as well, and may - of course! - be copyrighted. Please read the second passage of COM:FOP#Germany. --A.Savin 19:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In FOP#Germany says n.th. against aerial views. The "Hunderwasser"-verdict has n.th. to do with this case. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. „It is consensus among legal commentators that the use of accessories, such as ladders or helicopters, disqualifies from the application of § 59 UrhG“. Pretty old hut, already discussed in dozens of RfD's. --A.Savin 19:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bei Bauwerken knüpfe der Urheberrechtsschutz nicht an die Eigenschaft eines Gebäudes als Repräsentations- oder Kunstbau an. Entscheidend sei alleine die künstlerische Gestaltung des Bauwerks. Nicht jedes Gebäude genieße Urheberrechtsschutz. Alltagsbauten, die lediglich das bekannte architektonische Formenrepertoire wiederholen und nicht aus der Masse des alltäglichen Bauschaffens herausragen, wie vorliegend, seien nicht geschützt. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Ich finde die Reaktion hier völlig übertrieben. Zudem bezweifele ich, dass man aus eine Höhe von 600m (!!) von einem Architekturfoto sprechen kann, bei dem die Panoramafreiheit berührt ist und charakteristische Elemente der Architektur ausreichend genau erkennbar sind. Kritisch wäre es, wenn mit der Aufnahme die Privatsphäre verletzt würde. Das ist wohl bei der Schalke-Arena zu verneinen. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is a photo of architecture. The building is in focus and obviously main purpose of the composition. The photo is nominated for deletion because it is clearly not covered by Germany FoP; not because of a violation of privacy. --A.Savin 21:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, as regards FOP: Unfortunately the view from the air is not privileged by freedom of panorama (§ 59 UrhG), see Federal High Court (BGH), I ZR 192/00 – Hundertwasser-Haus, decided on 5 June 2003: "Ebenso ist die Luftaufnahme eines solchen Gebäudes [von der Panoramafreiheit] nicht privilegiert, schon weil es Teile des Gebäudes zeigt, die von dem Weg, der Straße oder dem Platz aus nicht zu sehen sind." ("Likewise, the view from the air of such a building is not covered [by FOP], not least because it shows parts of the building that cannot be seen from the way, the street or the place.") It is universally held in the literature that pictures from planes or helicopters do not qualify for FOP (Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim, 4th ed. (2008), § 59 (7); Lüft in Wandtke/Bullinger, UrhR, 4th ed. (2014), § 59 (3); Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts, 2nd ed. (2010), § 31 (241); Cornelie von Gierke (2002): Die Freiheit des Straßenbildes (§ 59 UrhG), p. 110; Schönewald: Die rechtlichen Voraussetzungen für Foto- und Filmaufnahmen von Bauwerken und Gebäuden. In: wrp. 2/2014 (15)). At the same time, I see no reason to doubt the copyrightability of this arena, see also http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/veltinsarenagelsenki/ and http://architectism.com/shalke-04s-wonderful-stadium-veltins-arena/ for a description of the design ideas. Sorry, — Pajz (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per Pajz: The stadium is probably protected and the German freedom of panorama does not apply. ireas (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly the other way round: Aerial pictures are not a general problem and that the stadium is protected by copyright is just a chimera that is not covered by a court decision. Please check AZ 161 C 3130/09, AG München from 19.08.2009. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this stadium is below the originality threshold, as a usual residential building perhaps is. --A.Savin 07:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Show me please just one court decision that supports your doubt. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Was soll denn daran geschützt sein? Nicht alles, was Architekten irgendwann anrichten, ist auch als schützenswert anzusehen. Da hat jemand seine Arbeit getan, das ist handwerk, nichts weiter. --Ralf Roleček 08:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist kein Fertighaus oder Plattenbau, das ist ein individuelles Projekt. Ich wüsste nicht, dass es irgendwo Stadien gibt, die genauso aussehen. Individuelles Projekt und Erscheinungsbild = Schöpfungshöhe vorhanden. Eigentlich fast schon Grundschulwissen... --A.Savin 08:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weder die Fertigungsmethode noch das subjektive Empfinden sind geeignet um Urheberrecht geltent zu machen. Bei Bauwerken überwiegen statisch-bauliche Gründen für oder gegen eine bestimmte Gestaltung. Und solange wir es nicht mit Architekturikonen zu tun haben (die Veltins-Arena ist ganz sicher keine) dürfte es schwer werden für Architekten, Urheberrecht durchzusetzen. Bring doch bitte wie schon mal aufgefordert nur ein Gerichtsurteil was deine These stützt. Ich habe eines gebracht, was meine stützt. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um mit dem Vorsichtsprinzip konform zu gehen, bin ich nicht verpflichtet, eine Urheberrechtsverletzung nachzuweisen. Vielmehr muss in strittigen Fällen wie in diesem, nachgewiesen werden dass keine Urheberrechtsverletzung vorliegt. --A.Savin 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vorsicht ist gut, Kontrolle besser. Leider sind deine Anhaltspunkte für eine Löschung gering. So gesehen könnte und müsste man noch viel mehr löschen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A (C)opyright sign on a building? How should it be possible? --A.Savin 08:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The German Urheberrecht does not require a copyright sign. ireas (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons understanding of the law is clear that German FOP allows for images taken from public streets, etc. and not from private places or the air. This clearly infringes on the architect's copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also, File:I am at Madina Al Munawara.jpg

Out Of project scope, unused personal file. ~ Nahid Talk 19:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~ Nahid, , Thanks noticing. It seems to me nothing to have any copy right issue. Hence, is not the place of Madina Al Munawar a public place? Though if you think it should be deleted then OK let you delete all. No matter at all. Cool! --- Sufidisciple (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sufidisciple: The pictures have nothing to do with copyright. Yes, Madina Al Munawar is a public place but the photographs seems to have personal flavors. Commons has a specific scope that means everything uploaded on commons must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Thanks for your understanding! ~ Nahid Talk 10:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Personal images. Commons is not Facebook .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 e-mail, not sure if it is OK store here in Commons Banfield - Amenazas aquí 19:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Clear violation of the copyright for the text of the e-mail, which belongs to the sender. Publication in a newspaper, with or without permission, does not eliminate that copyright. The fact that it is in use cannot let us keep a copyvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 - signature of non-notable individual Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 me sirvió Giovany Lara (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: book cover. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, most likely grabbed from social media. Gunnex (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to http://spanish.stackexchange.com/questions/8726/recognize-spanish-phrase, this picture is a modern creative copy of original portret by Gutiérrez and it was uploded by me because of mistake. Murasha (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per request of uploader who said the upload was in error. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 logo. Rapsar (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 logo. Rapsar (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 by Government of Sri Lanka (PD 50 years after death of last author, no execptions for Official or Government Works). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Official_works - The exception for government and other works is very limited: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 6 and 7, no protection shall be extended under this Part. Share Bear (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: section 6 applies Jcb (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Obi2canibe as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not uploader's own work, military unit badge Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Krd 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 by Government of Sri Lanka (PD 50 years after death of last author, no execptions for Official or Government Works). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Official_works - The exception for government and other works is very limited: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 6 and 7, no protection shall be extended under this Part. Share Bear (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: section 6 applies Jcb (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Obi2canibe as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not uploader's own work, military unit badge Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Krd 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 by Government of Sri Lanka (PD 50 years after death of last author, no execptions for Official or Government Works). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Official_works - The exception for government and other works is very limited: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 6 and 7, no protection shall be extended under this Part. Share Bear (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: section 6 applies Jcb (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Obi2canibe as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not uploader's own work, military unit badge Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Krd 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 by Government of Sri Lanka (PD 50 years after death of last author, no execptions for Official or Government Works). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Official_works - The exception for government and other works is very limited: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 6 and 7, no protection shall be extended under this Part. Share Bear (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: section 6 applies Jcb (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Obi2canibe as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not uploader's own work, military unit badge Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Krd 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 by Government of Sri Lanka (PD 50 years after death of last author, no execptions for Official or Government Works). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Official_works - The exception for government and other works is very limited: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 6 and 7, no protection shall be extended under this Part. Share Bear (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: section 6 applies Jcb (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Obi2canibe as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not uploader's own work, military unit badge Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Krd 16:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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. Personal work of the New Oakland Center's Face to Face Program (the real logo is this). Far above the TOO. Fma12 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 16:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe too dark to be usable. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 16:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Keep The map accurately represents a fair representation of Lynn's work. If we seek to avoid inconvenient but possible truths, we are guilty of censorship with an eye to something other than truth. The reasons provided for removal appear disingenuous.

The original posting of the file makes unclear whether it is a derivative work based on an image in a copyrighted book, in which case the reason for deletion is copyright violation, or the submitter's original research based on text of the book, in which case the reason for deletion is no reliable source per [[WP:RS]. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Your reasons for deletion don't make sense - derivative work is not a copyright violation, if it was, a half of all maps on commons would have to be deleted, such as Huntington's Clash of Civilizations map or Human Development index maps. To that pertains also the fact that "original research" is allowed, because it's just a visual representation of given data. No one has given us the color scale or range for the HDI map, Wikipedians created it.--Kohelet (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per above rationale.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note
DR was not properly added to DR page which I have done today. And the file will be moved as the source used for the map is obviously not 100% based on pure data but contains estimates.--Denniss (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the file is out of scope as not educationally useful. The methodology used to create the estimates has been highly criticized and this graphic could only be used to illustrate Lynn & Vanhanen's estimates and not any factual representation of IQs. Wicherts et al stated The numbers could be generated "only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data "[1] With Nisbett stating the numbers rely on small and haphazard samples and for ignoring data that did not support the conclusions[2] The image is particularly out of scope if such details of its poor academic basis are removed from the description. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, en:WP:RS is for another Wikimedia project. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep WP:RS would apply to giving credence to Lynn & Vanhanen's viewpoint, as expressed in this diagram – in the context of a non-Commons project that applies it. However we have a number of articles across WP projects that comment upon L&V, rather than using them uncritically as a source. For the purposes of such articles it already has a clear purpose within COM:SCOPE. That doesn't mean that we believe their conclusions. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

One of many sea/sky images. There are better images Richard Avery (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 image ; No notability ; No use ; this photo is the only upload of the user. Civa (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 file 91.65.49.106 17:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe too blurry. A bit better image of the same object is File:Zabawa Lego 33.JPG. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, please remove Kapsuglan (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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. Maybe, it upload for vandalism. DonSimon (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 was obviously not taken by the FBI as claimed since the FBI never had custody of Bin Laden. The FBI is well known to ignore copyright in using images of wanted people and this is certainly one of those cases. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been used by the U.S Department of Defense as far back as 2001, during the invasion of Afghanistan in the form of a leaflet [11], meaning that the U.S government undoubtedly have copyright over the image, being the first known and therefore original publishers. The FBI have used it since 1999. No copyright tag is even present on the image. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be, but governments are notorious for using whatever image they can get for wanted people. As I said, the FBI certainly didn't take this image and I doubt very much that any other Federal employee did. In order to keep it, you must show who actually took the photo and that he or she has licensed it appropriately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found this image on the Associated Press website [12], which is very similar to the FBI version [13] though the latter has been cropped, enhanced and de-colorized. The image was apparently taken in Afghanistan of April 1998 and the author is listed as "Anonymous". However, it is listed as being uploaded on the 2nd of May 2011, 12 years after the FBI first used it, and 9 years after the Department of Defense produced it in Afghanistan as a wanted poster. I also found the same image, this time with the color and enhancement, but it is cited as being from Reuters [14] and then the same image cited as being from the Associated Press [15]. It is clear that an Associate Press or Reuters photographer/journalist did not take this image, as it was obviously from some unknown al-Qaeda operative or associate to Osama bin Laden. If the image doesn't have a verifiable author and was taken in Afghanistan and first produced there, wouldn't that make in the the Public-Domain according to the United States? StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that if the image were taken in Afghanistan in the 1990s and first published there, that it would be PD. However, it is up to you to prove that that is the case. It seems to me much more likely that it was first published outside of Afghanistan. The fact that the author is unknown does not affect the copyright in the short term in most countries -- that is, in most countries an image with an unknown author may have a shorter copyright, but it will still be more than 15 or 20 years. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the U.S could take pictures of everything, and then all images would be in the public domain. It appears that it was taken in Afghanistan, at least according to the Associated Press [16]. The U.S. did officially publish it in Afghanistan when they distributed the leaflets and posters with that image on it in September 2002, thereby making it accessible to the public for public use. Here is the proof [17]. To save you time from scrolling throughout the page, it's the 19th and 22nd image used by the U.S Department of Defense during Operation Enduring Freedom. StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While, as you say, the US apparently published it in Afghanistan in 2002, that does not say anything about when and where it was first published. That's the key to its copyright status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. I don't wish to sound ignorant, but I found another source which is easier to navigate [18]. This shows the leaflet containing the Osama bin Laden image in Afghanistan, and as stated, were held by an Afghan on November 27th 2001 which proves it was published there. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The image was first published in the country of origin, Afghanistan when the U.S Department of Defense produced material with that image printed on it for the civilian population of Afghanistan to use. The source [19] states it was held by an Afghan on November 27th 2001, which is the first recorded publishing of the image. The image was taken in April 1998, and Osama bin Laden was based out of Afghanistan during that period. The AP source [20], cites the location as Afghanistan, lists the photographer as anonymous and was only uploaded to the AP archive in 2009, in contrast to this photo which has been in use by the FBI since November 2001 [21] which was the month and year of first publication [22]. StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: No real doubt that it was first published in Afghanistan, probably by the US gov. Yann (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No explanation as to what the statement "No real doubt that it was first published in Afghanistan" has to do with the copyright status. {{PD-Afghanistan}} requires publication more than 50 years ago. Where was this published more than 50 years ago? Stefan4 (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you fail to demonstrate that you have even read the license in use. I suggest you start there, before listing the files I upload for deletion. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Procedural closure. Reopening without new information. Yann (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Found this image here on the Associated Press website which states that it was submitted in 1998 [23]. This is before the FBI used it in 1999. Unsure whether this constitutes as being 'published' material or not, However, it is blatantly obvious that the Associated Press did not take this image of bin Laden, but they must have got it from some source, some how, so I don't know if it is allowed on Commons. StanMan87 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AP site was failing for me (from the UK), however this Archive version works. -- (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have uploaded the uncropped version, thumbnail to the right. This was found by a Google image search based on the apparent original hosted by Associated Press. Whichever license the consensus judges to apply to the cropped version should apply to the original. Consequently I have linked this DR from the original version image page and the outcome of this DR should apply to it. -- (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It is apparent that my comment above about the status of this image is wrong. I was under the incorrect impression that all Afghan images before 2008 were PD. It is clear that we need a license from the photographer or a good reason why this should be PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment File:Osama bin Laden.jpg got the same DR. --JuTa 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: As per Jim and Stefan. Natuur12 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF Leoboudv (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Since the image also apears here and given the history of the accountholder I would say hat the PCP applies. Natuur12 (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Originally uploaded with a misspelled filename (“Counsellor” s/b “Councillor”) — another version was already uploaded and is being used thumb|left therefore this version should be deleted. Who R you? en.WP:Who R you? (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dorothy Shakespear, whose artwork this is, died in 1973. Although her husband, Ezra Pound, was an American, he lived in the UK from 1910 to 1924, so the country of origin of this work is the UK, which is p.m.a. 70. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FOP in Belarus. 195.50.31.213 12:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead architect is Boris Shkolnikov[24]. And he is still alive. --195.50.31.213 22:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 is not appropriately attributed and may be a copyvio Richard Avery (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not be the same for all contributions of Ciencia y tecnologia Sinaloa (talk · contribs)? Moumou82 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 05:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Promotional or vanity image of non-notable person. Unlinked Richard Avery (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploaded by myself on 2014-07-05. A better version from the same source with full color information is now available at File:Portret van Willem IV Rijksmuseum SK-A-6.jpeg. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small size, no EXIF data, copy here. Yann (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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", uploaded in 2012. Here's a version of 2011: http://robegafutbol.blogspot.de/2011/10/una-largada-excitante-por-jorge-barraza.html 91.65.49.106 17:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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's not Melha's own work, it's from here. Unclear copyright, Com:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 without metadata 91.65.49.106 17:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

no permission 91.65.49.106 17:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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'm sorry, but thats not covered by COM:FOP#Japan. JuTa 18:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering serial copyright violator User talk:NicSar Gunnex (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bedeutungslose name Pimbrils (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination Krd 06:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ошибочная загрузка ajstalker (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: uploader request Krd 06:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ошибочная загрузка ajstalker (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: uploader request Krd 06:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ошибочная загрузка ajstalker (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: uploader request Krd 06:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ошибочная загрузка ajstalker (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: uploader request Krd 06:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

completely replaced (pages shown are already replaced or deleted) Antemister (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: old file, in use, no reason to delete Krd 06:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also:

There is no mention of copyright or a license on the source site. These 1950s-1960s images, taken in France, certainly have copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. It is mentioned on the source site zarfin.com that "the information and documents presented at this site come from the artist’s family". It means that this picture was brought from the artist Faibich-Schraga Zarfin family archive. Ales-bank (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is the fact that having an image in a family archive does not necessarily mean that the family owns the copyright -- it is much more likely that the copyright is owned by the photographer or his heirs. So, a first step in clearing these for Commons would be to establish that the family actually owns the copyrights. That still would not tell us anything about the license status of the images -- did the family simply give some images to the site creator, who posted them without permission? Or, more likely, did the family give the images to the site creator with informal, perhaps oral, permission to use them on the site? It is unlikely that the family actually executed a formal transfer of copyright or a formal license which includes the right to sublicense. Unless we have clear evidence that the source has the right to sublicense the images for all uses, including commercial use, we cannot keep them on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your profound comment. In case with file File:Zarfin.jpg I've found information that picture was brought from the book 'Zarfin, sous la dir. d’Ernest Fraenkel, préface d’Etienne Souriau, Genève, Pierre Cailler, 1962' Ales-bank (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion, no permission Krd 06:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dabikunが提供しているロゴマークはオリジナルではありません。このファイルで示されている意匠は正確性に欠け、相違の度合が大きいため、仙台空港鉄道株式会社に対する信頼性を損ねる可能性があります。 Shimoya (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: in use, so no reson to delete for quality reasons Krd 06:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Google Maps maps focussed.

   FDMS  4    09:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - These images were loaded by Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) on maps that they created. --DanTD (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I highly doubt Google is ever going to accept any CC-licensing of their maps. The first one is a rather clear copyvio case in my opinion, the last too could be de minimis. Actually, I'm almost sure now the latter two are de minimis cases.    FDMS  4    20:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per COM:PRP, there is significant doubt about the licensing of the maps. Green Giant (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flag map of fictional state. It did never exist. Anatoliy (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Unless Molecularpsychiatry is Julio Licinio, they cannot release a picture authored by another person under CC Yann (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No evidence provided that uploader is copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read COM:OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

cutting from video, but is not available, VOA can film on the remoted and disputed island of China? CNBH (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

cutting from video, but is not available, VOA can film on the remoted and disputed island of China? CNBH (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 redundant image which has been replaced with File:EBU enlargement animation.gif Qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD F1 criteria. Wes Mᴥuse 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, nothing against the GIF, but I don't see how it could "replace" a SVG. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment, In answer to your question in which you can't see how the GIF could replace a SVG - look at the file usage, the SVG isn't used on any article - the GIF is currently used on 2 English, 1 Spanish, 1 Gallican, 1 Romanian, and 1 Slovakian Wiki articles; which previously used the SVG version - so it clearly has "replaced" it. Wes Mᴥuse 16:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: File has been here since 2011, could be in use by reusers plus the map is in scope since it has educational value. Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 comprised of multiple elements (layers), and the only element that is not copyrighted is the X-ray source by NASA's Chandra telescope. Thus, this image is non-free and should be deleted. Huntster (t @ c) 02:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the copyright notice of ESO (http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/copyright/), who publicated the image, in detail:
Q: Do I need to contact all the people named in the credit line for permission to use an image or video?
A: No. Images and videos published on eso.org are, unless explicitly stated otherwise, 
   cleared for reuse without needing to contact the individuals or organisations listed. 
   Their names must not be removed from the credit, however. 
In conclusion, permission is provided by ESO.
BR, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ESO cannot release copyright on material they do not have copyright on. In this specific instance, there are four elements to consider.
  • "Radio: NRAO/AUI/NSF/GBT/VLA/Dyer, Maddalena & Cornwell, X-ray: Chandra X-ray Observatory; NASA/CXC/Rutgers/G. Cassam-Chenaï, J. Hughes et al., Visible light: 0.9-metre Curtis Schmidt optical telescope; NOAO/AURA/NSF/CTIO/Middlebury College/F. Winkler and Digitized Sky Survey."
  • Radio material is by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, operating the Green Belt Telescope. Their work is copyrighted.
  • X-ray material is by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. This is public domain.
  • Visible light material is by National Optical Astronomy Observatory, operating the Curtis Schmidt telescope. Their work is copyrighted.
  • Additional visible light material is by the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Array, as mentioned outside the credit line. This work is CC-by-3.0.
By crediting outside organisations in that credit line, ESO is explicitly "stating otherwise" with regard to the license. ESO cannot unilaterally declare another agency or organisation's works as freely licensed any more than a Roskosmos image is released simply by appearing on a NASA website. Our situation here is the same as if you mixed elements of a NASA image (public domain) and an ESA image (copyrighted). The result would be copyrighted and thus unacceptable for Commons. The least-free element in a work is what you have to base the resulting license on. Huntster (t @ c) 16:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course ESO cannot release copyright other people hold. I was thinking along a different line: NRAO/NOAO can perfectly not allow to use their images commercially without permission. But they can grant the permission to publish a derivative work based on thier image under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
The afore mentioned Q&A does not make sense if a credit to another institution inherently means, that reuse is not cleared.
Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS.: What about File:Supernova Remnant SN 1006.jpg?
Thanks for pointing out that second copy, missed it somehow. I've added it to the request.
As to your other points, within the astrophotography community there seems to be a significant disregard for the consequences of copyright status. They're great at providing attribution though. It cannot be assumed in these cases that permission was explicitly obtained or that copyright issues have been resolved. Remember that Commons operates on the precautionary principle. Huntster (t @ c) 19:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the astrophotography community are some issues, in fact: Examples are chandra images at whole, were their website does not provide commercial permission and we have only an OTRS-Ticket from a person in their organization, who says it's ok. Is this person entitled to give wikimedia this permission?
I will follow your argumentation, if you have an evidence (e.g. an email from NOAO) that ESO has maken a mistake. Keep in mind, ESO is amenable to law for the copyright of their publication. We had this discussion already some time ago, in File_talk:M101_hires_STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg.
Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have not examined the Chandra situation in detail, but as a NASA funded mission, the non-commercial condition is complete bunk...those images are in the public domain regardless of Harvard's wishes. I've not seen that DR you mention, but to me the arguments seem very flawed. Of course, this is just my opinion. I'd very much like to see others' input on this. Huntster (t @ c) 14:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is linked to File:The_Cool_Clouds_of_Carina.jpg and File:Eta_Carinae_Nebula_1.jpg, which on the one hand have NOAO images included, on the other are featured pictures in wikipedia/wikimedia, too. Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please add a summary / conclusion? Thank you. --Krd 21:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming these files as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host them on Commons FASTILY 21:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolana and Han L.J. van der Maas, Intelligence Volume 38, Issue 1, January–February 2010, Pages 30-37
  2. Nisbett, Richard. 2009. Intelligence and how to get it. pp. 215.