Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/11/29

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 November 29th, 2015
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 deleted this images a couple of times before and I am not sure whether the lengthy rational stated in the image description actually justifies keeping the image. This request (at least) also applies to:

ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions:
--ALE! ¿…? 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment See also en:Che Guevara (photo)#Current legal status. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Question What is the argument for deletion? I see a lengthy, detailed and well-reasoned rationale for its use. What, in the opinion of the nominator, is wrong with this rationale? 216.14.252.123 17:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Why is this nominated for deletion? Does wikipedia just hate Che Guevara? 69.161.78.31 02:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether the photo is free in Cuba and the US (copyright). We do NOT apply political arguments here. --ALE! ¿…? 07:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't articulate any reason why the lengthy, detailed and well-reasoned rationale for its use is in error? Thanks for clearing that up. 216.14.252.123 03:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. PD-Cuba and PD in USA according to detailed explanation here: File:CheHigh.jpg. Copyright status elsewhere is not relevant to Commons. Yann (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

René Burri/Magnum Photos holds a copyright is on this image. Photo information can be found at http://www.magnumphotos.com/Asset/-2S5RYD1PEVR4.html 70.50.219.231 04:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright information provided by the uploader is probably incorrect, likely copied from another Che photo. Uploader was requested to provide corrected info, but they did not respond for over a week while still bing active. I suggest deletion as there is no evidence the photo was indeed published in Cuba, especially as original upload information is unreliable. Moreover the ticket:2016042710014497 suggests that the photo may be copyrighted by Magnum Photos. Ankry (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Note The previous DR above concerns absolutely diffrent image that was renamed, redirect deleted and that another image was uploaded under its name. Ankry (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment (changed from having actually deleted the file)... It was first published in in 1963 and in the US, so copyright-wise is a US work. That issue of Look is present in the 1963 copyright records (p. 107), and Look appear to have renewed copyrights to issues post-1937. However, I can find no renewals for any 1963 Look issues on http://www.copyright.gov/records . I can also not find any renewals for René Burri or Magnum Photos works in the database from the relative time period, but have found registrations (e.g. TX0001719719, TX0004777415, VA0000092056). I find that database extremely difficult to search, however, so me not finding it does not equate to it not being there. The entries that I found may or may not include this photo, but even if they do, I don't know whether that counts as a renewal... All in all, I think I closed this prematurely. Thanks Ankry for bringing it to my attention! Storkk (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I have changed the invalid {{PD-Cuba}} to likely valid {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. And let's wait for more comments, if any. Ankry (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the ticket 2016042710014497 you refer to? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: I'd also be curious to the extent that you can divulge what it relates to -- it's not in a permissions queue or any other queue I have access to. Storkk (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Storkk and Asclepias: It is in the Sister project::Commons queue; the ticket is a third party suggestion that the image may be copyrighted. It contains nothing more than has been written here. I started this DR basing on COM:PRP as information provided by uploader was unreliable. But now, after Storkk's investigatioons (thanks to him) I do not consider COM:PRP a valid deletion reason in this case any longer. So I suggest  Keep unless more info is available or a renewal is found. Ankry (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Ctruongngoc as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: René Burry, photographe de nationalité suisse est mort en 2014. En aucun cas ses photographies ne sont dans le domaine public. Converting to DR due to several previous DRs. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

et43t43 4t3 The WikiBalls (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Artinmarseille99 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These two photos do not appear to be own work of the uploader, as claimed. They are a lower resolution version of photo File:Statue de David à Marseille.jpg previously uploaded to Comons by Robert Valette.

RP88 (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:09, 29 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.

journal de 1950, pas libre de droits Havang(nl) (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:01, 29 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.

Wrong person, this is Gaston Leroux, already on Commons here: File:G. LEROUX.jpg. Yann (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Duplicate, wrong name. Yann (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Swiss Airbus A330-300; HB-JHG@ZRH;18.01.2012 633bq (6726200309).jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: Hell, no. Flickr gives their users the choice to release their work as PD and by chosing it they believe they are making it the most free possible. Commons need to tap this obvious source of good-will: If more discussion and analysis is needed, then take you time; if that fails then it is necessary to caution Flickr users about legal issues and recomend them to change that faux PD to CC-by-SA or something. Deleting the photos obviously donated by users is premature and unnecessary, short-sighted, and counter-productive — it will alienate these photographers and send out the wrong message that Wikimedia Commons refuses PD works. -- Tuválkin 14:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This PD Mark is not a license, nor can someone release something under it. Our current Public Domain-templates, such as {{PD-self}} has a secondary clause that states: "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." which is needed as a "fallback license" in case releasing to the public domain has no legal meaning. We can't relicense something from PD Mark 1.0 to another PD-license/template, since they have different legal text and the Flickr user has not agreed to those terms.

Plus, we can not assume an authors intentions nor relicense files to our reusers, without expressly stated license agreements of such things, which there are none. I agree, it says public domain, but it is the actual legal texts that has precedence, not the letterhead. We can guess what an author wants all day, but in the end we will comit fraud and relicense images without explicit permission from the owners. Josve05a (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Emotional arguments will get me nowhere?! What?! Is this me wanting something that you don’t? No, we all want this and thousands of other images to be kept. I, for one, am ready to work for it, and contacted this photo’s author in Flickr. What did you do, besides playing Devil’s advocate and lobbying for deletion of thousands of photos whose authors want shared to the world? (Yes, some might be iffy — but that’s applied to any license, and we do have mechanisms to deal with license misuse.) -- Tuválkin 15:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this was a license misuse, claiming to be under one legal text, while being under another. THis is a way to handle such a missuse. Of course I stand for free infomration and knowledge in all shapes and formes. But I'm also thinking legaly here. We need to err on PRP and delete the files until a file may have been relicensed on Flickr. Josve05a (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Waste of time, legalese speaking in a corner leads 7 months later to this? What was made meanwhile by sid persons? Nothing, but they want others to do the same thing in 7 days. Close this and similar DR, discuss the subject in an open and public forum (not in someones backyard) and reach a conclusion. Tm (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This rationaleis a violation of PRP. (Nobody has complained) And no, consensus has nothing to do with this, it is the legal aspects we need to look at. (scope discussions etc. need consensus, this does not.It is a violation) Josve05a (talk)
A RFC listed at COM:CENT for over six months is by far not 'someone's backyard'. It is, in fact, about as 'open and public' of a venue as you can have. Revent (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per above Alan (talk) 15:32, 29 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.

This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as no license (No license since) It stil doesn't have a license which is comaptible with Commons. Josve05a (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: as per Asclepias and Alan. Yann (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still hasn't a license. How can a file be kept without a license...? Josve05a (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It now has a license — thanks to people who enganged the photographer on Flickr, not to the fruitless squabbling here. -- Tuválkin 19:42, 4 December 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.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Josve05a (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, obviously. Revent and Josve05a, you keep harping that this was discussed at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images since April and now, so sorry, lets delete the lot. Were the authors contacted and asked to reconsider their tagging in Flickr, suggested they change it to something we can use? No?, in seven months time? Why not? Why now these toxic DRs badgering(pun!) us to try and fix in seven days what you didn’t want to fix in seven months? -- Tuválkin 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, obviously. Feel free to write up a letter to original photographers (not uploaders) asking if they wish for their pictures to be removed from Commons if you care, but it should be opt-in for deletion not opt-out. This business is absurd - going round mass-deleting images whose photographers have marked them as public domain is a totally unacceptable approach. I edit Wikipedia extensively and hadn't heard about this business until I logged in to upload some new photos today. Many of these photos may have been uploaded by people who have long departed the project - their contributions shouldn't be erased with a week's notice. Blythwood (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and change the licenses the {{Cc0}} to clear up this legal issue at Commons. The license cc0 is OK but cc-pd is NOT. This is a simple solution. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Leoboudv: it is not licensed as cc0 on Flickr So no. You can't relicense someone else's work without them agreeing to it. And CC-PD is not the same as PD Mark 1.0 under which it is tagged on Flickr. Please retract. Josve05a (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Josve05a: If this is genuinely a problem, then we will need a form letter to write to individual authors asking them to relicence. Has such a letter been written yet to send out to each author? Blythwood (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, and neither is it done for FoP-cases or URAA-cases (unless someone activly does it individually) or in any case when we might have a possibilty to get a relicense. I just brought forth the problem. How we solve it is up to each and their own. Josve05a (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per above Alan (talk) 15:29, 29 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.

This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as no license (No license since) It stil doesn't have a license which is comaptible with Commons. (PD-author is NOT the same as PD Mark 1.0!) Josve05a (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: as per Asclepias and Alan. Yann (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still hasn't a license. How can a file be kept without a license...? Josve05a (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does now. -- Tuválkin 11:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image says "Art work by CY Graphics", but uploader claims as own work - and is a vandal now blocked for creating a hoax using this image Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


it is my own work Bëłkã Jūįčÿ Øffïçiâl i am CY Graphics--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dont belive Boing! said Zebedee she is a LIAR--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 20:13, 30 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.

Uploaded as own work, but image clearly has someone else's logo on it - uploader is a vandal now blocked for creating a hoax using this image Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


it is my own work for my frnd Bëłkã Jūįčÿ Øffïçiâl by mr production--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bëłkã Jūįčÿ Øffïçiâl is an American rapper, record producer, fashion designer, singer, songwriter, entrepreneur, investor, and actor.--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


dont belive Boing! said Zebedee she is a LIAR--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 20:11, 30 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.

Its of no use without information. Please do me a favor I no longer want this image on wikimedia, Mesohrab (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Speedied per uploader request as file was unused. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:28, 1 December 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.

I uploaded these photos from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Flickr stream as DFAT/AusAID made them available under CC-BY. In reviewing this set of images, I note that they were taken by Ness Kerton for AusAID, but the EXIF data shows that madNESS Photography (Ness Kerton) is the copyright holder. As such, DFAT/AusAID can not make these available under the CC-BY licence. I will contact Ness for permission to keep these images on Commons under the CC-BY licence, and I hope she will be in agreeance as they are very valuable imagery as it relates to society of Papua New Guinea. I will report back either way, but in the event permission is not forthcoming, unfortunately they will need to be deleted.

106.68.30.18 11:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Steinsplitter (talk) 18:26, 3 December 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.

This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Can you describe and categorize the file correctly? This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Aside from the copyvio question, with no loacation or other information, this is not useful for any purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 6 December 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.

unused personal photo, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 6 December 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.

Unused personal photos are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete. Not a personal photo (the subject is notable), but it's a blatant {{copyvio}} with false authorship claims, grabbed from https://www.berlinale.de/en/archiv/jahresarchive/2014/05b_starportraits_2014_1/05b_starportraits_2014.php#navi=20701&item=33563. LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 6 December 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.

Erreerreerreeereeereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeweeeseeeseeesesseesessessess 194.151.44.19 18:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Not a reason to delete. Widely in use, great photo .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 6 December 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.

I didn't consent for this photograph to be taken or used here and would appreciate it being removed. Brinjonathanbutler (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This image was taken in a public place at an event in the United States open to the public. There should have been no expectation of privacy, and consent is not required in this circumstance. However, I have no objection to the image being removed. -Nv8200p (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you please remove it? Brinjonathanbutler (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: We rarely remove images at the request of the subject and never if it is the only image we have of a notable person. I note that you appear to be seriously in violation of WP:EN's rules on Conflict of Interest -- it would probably be best if you stopped editting your article there and did remove the image again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 6 December 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.
relisting: subject and photographer request
"We rarely remove images at the request of the subject and never if it is the only image we have of a notable person."
in fact, subject requests are normally given even for notable people.[1] in fact, i deleted an image of a presenter at wikimania. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I stand by my comment. We have no idea whether the User making the request is in fact Brin-Jonathan Butler, so if we decided to agree to this request, it would have to come from a traceable source to OTRS. Also note that this image is in use to illustrate Brin-Jonathan Butler. It is the only image we have of him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
apparently, the photographer believes and concurs, this is why commons is held in low esteem, even beyond monkey selfies. there is no consistency whatever, merely "don't tell me what to do". the personality rights is a poor substitute for a model release, which is normal practice among professionals. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I agree with Jim, this kind of request must have a traceable source via OTRS before to be discussed as there is curently no evidence the nominator is really the person on the photo. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 18:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 6 December 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.
Notice Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

Comments by users

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.

— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.

— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license). Josve05a (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, obviously. Blythwood (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It seems pretty clear to me that if a government body, from a city government that is normally very willing to put its materials out there for reuse (see the tons of images we have from the Seattle City Archives), says these materials are PD, they either know exactly what they are talking about or intend the mark as a release. If there is really any doubt (as against someone just being systematic about dicscussing every instance of this license tag), I'd suggest contacting the relevant Flickr account, which is clearly that of the Council itself, and asking for clarification via COM:OTRS.

Kept: per above Alan (talk) 15:32, 29 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.

This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as no license (No license since) It stil doesn't have a license which is comaptible with Commons. Josve05a (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep and speedy close. No new issues raised, similar discussions elsewhere, in particular here, here and here, have concluded with the decision that this is more a mistake by the photographer than a licensing problem. Several on this topic have been reopened and reclosed. Blythwood (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted The Creative Commons web site is very clear that the PDM mark is only a label, intended to be used only with very old works, to say that it is the user's opinion that the work is free of copyright everywhere. It does not create a license and may be changed at any time. If the Flickr site intended to make this image CC-0, at the very best, they made a serious mistake by picking a label that should be used only for very old works. I am unwilling to guess what the user's intentions actually were. Seeing that mistake, can we trust that the copyright actually belongs to the Seattle City Council?

The best course of action here will be for someone interested in this image to ask the Seattle City Council Flickr user to use a proper CC license instead of PDM. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 6 December 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.

Duplicate of SVG flag of Iowa. Fry1989 eh? 18:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 6 December 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.

Duplicate of SVG file of the flag of Iowa. Fry1989 eh? 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Surajjana (talk · contribs)

[edit]

3 unused personal images : out of scope, the logo if is in scope is not simple text https://www.facebook.com/opencubelabs/

--Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 6 December 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.

unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Sahoky (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused personal images : out of scope

--Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 6 December 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.

Image not used un anyy Wikipedia Page 177.249.136.205 19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: not a valid reason for deletion .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 6 December 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.

complex logo : if it is in scope it need a permission or an evidence it's free --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 6 December 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.

PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: Yes .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 6 December 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.

Unlikely to be own work, no permission. Yann (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Tulumovies (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Small size, no EXIF data, user with bad history, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 6 December 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.

The source file on Flickr shows a Public Domain Mark 1.0 license, which is not a compatible license. Diannaa (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to

  • File:Ankeny neighborhood greenway.JPG: What "source file on Flickr" are you talking about? Please provide a link. Are you saying that the uploader is not the author of this photo? Is there a reason to be believe so? It looks like the photo is taken with a S90, which matches with other photos by that person that can be found on the internet. If he is the author, as it seems he is, he can certainly release his own photo here with CC-0, as he did. Even if he had published it before under some other status. It's now CC-0. Maybe he got the 2015 date wrong, though, as he had published this photo on his blog in 2012 [2]. If you doubt the uploader's identity, you can ask him to leave a note on the source you invoke, or to send something to OTRS from his blog address to say that he is him.
  • File:Double buffered bike lane family trailer chicago.jpg: The EXIF has a copyright notice to David Schalliol. It should get OTRS, or some other form or verifiable communication from David Schalliol to clarify the status of the photograph and the wording of the release. At the moment, the Commons description page attributes it to someone else. That doesn't help.
  • File:Older women walking with bikes bike-ped pfluger bridge austin.jpg: The EXIF has a copyright notice to Coppola Photography. OTRS from Coppola photography should clarify the status and the wording of the release. At least, the attribution on the Commons page seems to be to the right person.
  • File:Older woman with flowers protected bike lane boston.jpg: The Flickr album states "Public domain" and "These can be used for free for any purpose" and the organization mentions the agreement with the photographer [3]. However, the uploader tagged the Commons file with a specific CC-0 release, for which there is no evidence. For this reason, OTRS confirmation of the exact status and wording of release, sent from the photographer's address, is needed.
  • The last three files were uploaded to Commons only fours days ago and already have OTRS pending tags. It seems too early to nominate for deletion in cases like this, where it looks almost certain that the uploads are legitimate. Of course, the communications should come from the right person for each file.
  • Conclusion: Keep all for now. Review later if necessary, depending on the results of the communications.
-- Asclepias (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered the questions about File:Ankeny neighborhood greenway.JPG. You say that it was released somewhere under some wording different from CC-0, but you provide no evidence and no link to your source. You imply that the uploader's release through CC-0 on Commons is not valid, but you provide no evidence or rationale to support such a position. The information about the three other files is a mess, but the context suggests that the three files have a good probability of being legitimate and that the informations are into the process of being sorted out through OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That one was listed in error. Sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: The three are on Flickr with PDM tags. That is not a license, nor is it irrevocable -- it is simply a statement that the person using it believes that the image is free everywhere. Creative Commons web site makes it very clear that it should be used only for very old images, which these clearly are not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 6 December 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.

TinEye search reveals 50+ copies of the image, with varying dimensions (eg. [4]). No evidence that the copy on Flickr (image dimensions 278x181, one of the inferior ones) is the original, and that the uploading account has permission to upload the image under said license. Chenzw  Talk  06:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply

The file was reviewed (see image): "This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 28 November 2015 by the administrator or reviewer Amitie 10g, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date."

The file size is the original size as stated at the flickr site for this photo. --Djenkins bburg (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: As noted above, the image appears in many places in larger sizes, see, for example, http://www.bear.org/website/bear-pages/black-bear/reproduction.html. This appears to be a case of COM:License laundering. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 6 December 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.

per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images (missing compatible license) Leoboudv (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The municipal government created the image and released it into the public domain. I can't find a statement where they say they are releasing it, but that Flickr account does belong the the municipality. On their government website, in the gallery section, they have links to the albums on Flickr. AuroralColibri (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: It is certainly a mistake, since the Creative Commons site makes it very clear that the label should be used only for very old works, but COM:PRP does not allow us to guess. Since the user made this mistake, it is also perfectly possible that he made others, including not knowing who owns the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by SANFORAN (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 08:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 6 December 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.

Incorrectly colored duplicate of File:Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force emblem.png. Kwasura (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 6 December 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.

Freedom of panorama in the UK (where this picture was photographed) is stated as applying to 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship" but not to 2D "graphic works." It seems doubtful that the depicted picture qualifies as a "work of artistic craftsmanship." Gazebo (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you can delete it. --ERJANIK (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by I3VAX (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal/self-promotional images

INeverCry 10:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by I3VAX (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons isn't facebook, these three personal images are out of scope.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 10:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 10:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 10:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 10:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by SrinivasKaratlapelli (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 10:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by BiologodePessoas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 10:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - no educational value - blurry low-quality image INeverCry 10:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 10:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 6 December 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.

copyright changed, deletion request from uploaded Gnkieffer (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: The CC-BY-SA license is irrevocable, so you cannot change its status here. It's a beautifulimage, we definitely should keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Certas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - promotional images

INeverCry 10:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 10:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Rizwan editor (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 10:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 10:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 6 December 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.

Toyota Land Cruiser 197.78.172.142 11:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and what is your concern? --Mattes (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No valid reason for deletion given. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 6 December 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.

Out of common scope (blur and unused file) Biplab Anand (Talk) 12:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 6 December 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.

Out of common scope Biplab Anand (Talk) 12:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 6 December 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.

likely TV/movie still, no permission Krd 12:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 6 December 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.

Julien Guillemard, mort en 1960 Havang(nl) (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Au sujet de :

L'auteur du livre est mort en 1960, mais la publication de cet ouvrage date de 1931 (il y a quatre-vingt quatre ans...) et je ne sache pas que l'éditeur ait encore des ayants-droits. Il a disparu. Quant à l'auteur, il n'a pas de droits sur l'image retenue par l'éditeur.

Il en va de même de :

--Bissorte (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For both File:Esprit du Havre, Julien Guillemard, 2e édition.jpg and File:Julien Guillemard, "La vie prodigieuse de Guillaume le Conquérant", 1937.jpg, the illustrations are by Albert Copieux (1885-1956). Will be public domain in France in 2027, and the U.S. in 2033. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 6 December 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.

Unfortunely, this picture belongs to BenficaTV, taking a picture of a broadcast doesn't make it own work Threeohsix (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, as I'm subscriber of this channel and I didn't ever aw any information that to take a photo on the content of the broadcast isn't a right of who takes the picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rui Beja (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: All TV broadcasts are copyrighted. No notice is required. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 6 December 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 6 December 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.

The character, Minamo, prohibits its modification [5]. Non-free character. Yasu (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 6 December 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.

Statues by Shoun Asano (浅野祥雲, † 1978). Copyright is still in effect and COM:FOP#Japan doesn't allow statues. Yasu (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 6 December 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.

The Adachi Museum of Art, in which the statue is situated, opened in 1970 (45 years ago). The statue cannot be older than that, hence supposedly copyrighted. COM:FOP#Japan doesn't allow statues even if installed in public places. Yasu (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 6 December 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.

Per COM:FOP#Japan and COM:PACKAGING; Ouchiyama Milk is a registered trademark of Japan. Yasu (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 6 December 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.

Monuments at Nagaragawa Stadium

[edit]

Nagaragawa Stadium, in which these monuments are situated, was built in 1991. These monuments cannot be older than that, hence supposedly copyrighted. COM:FOP#Japan doesn't allow artworks even if installed in public places. Yasu (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 6 December 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.

All the files taken from Google Maps. ---- Geagea (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 6 December 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 6 December 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.

Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 6 December 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.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.cricketeurope4.net/PHOTOS/2014/THEGALLERY/235412.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 6 December 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 6 December 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 6 December 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.

I will support keeping, if somebody will explain, what is depicted here. Taivo (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 6 December 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.

Out of scope: picture of a painter whose article has been deleted on Italian Wikipedia. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Mg16x (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal images : out of scope. Except one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mg16x but no other contributions of the user

--Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: We do allow user page images for contributing users, but the contributions must come first. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 6 December 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.

unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 6 December 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.

A new version File:EKD Segnungen gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare.png was created, this map was replaced by it. This is map which needs be maintained and updated regularly. This task is easier if there is only one version Antemister (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is being outdated a valid ground for deletion? I'm strongly opposed, as old revisions of the respective article point to this very file and deleting it would mean deletion history needlessly. --217.186.104.38 01:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per IP 217.186.104.38: even an outdated map has an historical interest. It should however be dated to avoid confusion. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:22, 28 March 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.

Unused and replaced by superior File:EKD Segnungen gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare.png; not up to date. - TalkingToTurtles (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information is available in oldest version of the map, see here. - TalkingToTurtles (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept It is well established policy that we keep intermediate versions of charts and maps whose content changes over time. You may use {{Rename}} to add a date to the file name, but the file cannot be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Lineages of Asia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All these maps come from https://sites.google.com/site/thelineagesofasia/home I searched but I found no evidence they are free

--Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These selfmade maps are free because the owner of these maps uploaded them himself.


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 6 December 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.

Even when FoP exists in Mexico, this is a 2D reproduction of the 2D work. I.e. A closeup of the painting by the painter, Diego Rivera (1886-1957). The mural may be protected in the US by URAA. In Mexico, the painting is protected until 70 years (probably) after death, meaning 2027 or 2028. George Ho (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: Mexico, with only four other countries, offers the broadest FOP -- any work, including text, in any public place -- inside or out, with or without admission charge. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 6 December 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.

unused, out of scope, bad quality (possibly unused wikiversity images), along with File:Qwerqwerdfg.JPG, File:Qwerqewr.JPG, File:Ac motor core.jpg, File:Qwerqwreq;.JPG, File:Qwerqwr.JPG, File:Mount1.JPG, File:Gear arm.JPG Pibwl (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 6 December 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.

André Bizette-Lindet is dead in 1998. No FoP in France. 82.120.32.221 20:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--

At the time of uploading I had not known of this problem, I have since learnt and understand why it is not allowed. I'll understand if/when this file is removed for this reason. --Eutouring (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 6 December 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.

André Bizette-Lindet is dead in 1998. No FoP in France. 82.120.32.221 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 6 December 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.

If the author is unknown, how can you say this is {{PD-old-70}}? howcheng {chat} 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: 1934 is far too recent to assume the author has been dead for 70 years. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 6 December 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.

André Bizette-Lindet is dead in 1998. No FoP in France. 82.120.32.221 21:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 6 December 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.

No permission from Oliver Wolters. 217.50.111.153 21:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 6 December 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.

it is on the wrong place Gogo1988 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Beautiful image. No valid reason for deletion given. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 6 December 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.

No Freedom of Panorama in Andorra. COM:FOP Andorra.

Lukas Beck (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 png-converted, downscaled version of the original, and already miserable VOA photo which is now available at File:Şükrü Bolat with Hüseyin Aygün.jpg. PanchoS (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: VOA images after June 2013 are NC and cannot be kept on Commons .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 6 December 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.

Small picture and it is a quite hard to understand what's shown in it. The Commons is not a repository for just everthing - We can live without this picture as it's not in use anyway. Ldorfman (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 6 December 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.

non-informative redirect Rezonansowy (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 6 December 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.

this file is identical to vers.2008 which has been replaced by vers. 2013 - there is no need for another file 2014[ Drdoht (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 6 December 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.

Again, no offense, but tagged as "http://3rdeye.photography", hence DR started to verify, Roland zh (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 6 December 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.

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine (see Commons:FOP#Ukraine) アンタナナ 00:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No FoP in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 6 December 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.

no offense, but scanned, potentially non-free portrait, hence DR started to verify, Roland zh (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Johnnydept3 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Uncertain copyright, out of scope.

Yann (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 6 December 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.

no offence, but DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. missing exif, Roland zh (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 6 December 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.

again, no offense, but DR as per File:Latha lakshmi1.jpg, Roland zh (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Baunard Sanon (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 08:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 08:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 6 December 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.

unused single photo of unknown notability (likely autopromo) Pibwl (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by JuanPinoInformación (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 09:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by JuanPinoInformación (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused logos of unclear notability.

XXN, 12:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:10, 6 April 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 07:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 07:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - no educational value - unusable low-quality image INeverCry 07:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 08:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - no educational value - blurry low-quality image INeverCry 08:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - no educational value - blurry low-quality image INeverCry 08:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - no educational value - blurry low-quality image INeverCry 08:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Truecone (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 08:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused plain text in jpg INeverCry 08:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Demetro laton (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 08:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Burchitu (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 08:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 6 December 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.

unused, doubtful authorship of anonymous uploader, same for the second upload File:Soberon.jpg Pibwl (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 09:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - per COM:EDUSE INeverCry 09:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Toeicthuduc (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - promotional images

INeverCry 09:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Mike nyalo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal/self-promotional images

INeverCry 09:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 09:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 6 December 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.

Possible copyright violation - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 09:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Smartcoffee53 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - promotional images/spam

INeverCry 09:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope, and likely copyrighted design Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 09:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Boss press (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 09:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 09:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by MOSLAGE (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images

INeverCry 09:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 09:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 6 December 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.

Out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 10:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 6 December 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.

As per COM:DW. These seem to be too complex for PD-textlogo. Any other reason they would be OK?

Yann (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:58, 6 December 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.

autopromo spam, along with rest of uploads File:Біогловіт стимулятор росту росин.JPG, File:Біогловіт добриво органно - мінеральне.JPG, File:Qr Благословіння.png Pibwl (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: spam Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 6 December 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.

the picture is of about 1935, but the Author died more than 75 years ago public domain images, that would be about (2011-75=1936). Goesseln (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Sorry for writing in German, writing the following in English would take me too much time.
In der Dateibeschreibungsseite ist kein Autor angegeben, von dem man behaupten könnte, er sei vor mehr als 75 Jahren verstorben; und das aus gutem Grund, denn die Bilddatei ist ein Ausschnitt aus diesem ganz einfach über die Google-Bildsuche zu findenden Bildes: http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1936/1101361012_400.jpg (der jetzige Quellen-Link ist ein Fehler, der wohl schon in der en-WP existierte und von dort bei der Übertragung übernommen wurde). Für das Cover aus dem Jahr 1936 gibt das Time Magazine folgende Urheberhinweise: Kinsey Bros. from ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY INDIA. Daraus lässt sich absolut kein "verstorben seit mind. 75 Jahren" konstruieren, die Angabe ist entsprechend unglaubwürdig. Und unter die PD-US-1923-Regel fällt das Bild auch nicht, dafür wurde es 13 Jahre zu spät veröffentlicht. -- Sir Gawain (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: The fact that it was first published in India before 1958 means that it is PD there, but unfortunately, the fact that it appeared on the cover of Time in 1936 means that it is still under copyright in the USA; .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 6 December 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.

These are screenshots from the film, and it has a copyright [6] (5 and 11 February 1936, p.73), and it seems to be renewed [7].

Yann (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 6 December 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.

again, no offense, but DR as per File:Received m mid 1402855159324 bd100dc2f2a4997274 0.jpeg, Roland zh (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:32, 7 December 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.

no offense, but potentially non-free upload, hence DR started to verify, Roland zh (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:32, 7 December 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.

no offence, but DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. format (scan?) and missing exif, Roland zh (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 10:34, 7 December 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.

No source, no author, complex background. Yann (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:34, 7 December 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.

no offence, but DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. thumbnail format and missing exif, Roland zh (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 10:34, 7 December 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.

no offence, but DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. thumbnail format and missing exif, Roland zh (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 10:35, 7 December 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.

Out of scope. Non notable football team of Argentina. - Fma12 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:35, 7 December 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.

Not own work at all. Screen capture of the ghost goal scored by Geoff Hurst at the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final. Fma12 (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 10:36, 7 December 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.

Out of scope, non-notable football team of Argentina. Possible personal work. - Fma12 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Alan (talk) 10:36, 7 December 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.

Possible copyright violation, photo found uncropped at http://sport.dziennik.pl/tenis/artykuly/501473,radwanska-w-finale-pokonala-bencic-6-2-6-2.html

This user has uploaded multiple photos that were deleted. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Kaktusowy Make91 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:36, 7 December 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.

Per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images, the painting is pd-old, however, the photographer need to release the picture in a license compatible with commons The Photographer (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per cmts Alan (talk) 10:36, 7 December 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.

include big posters which copyright are unknown Motopark (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Alan (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Vlad Kozlov Films (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - promotional images

INeverCry 08:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Alan (talk) 10:39, 7 December 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.

CD cover, unclear copyright status, out of scope - same for File:HUMBERTIKO & URNBANOS.jpg and File:REDES HUMBERTIKO.jpg (the 4th upload is used on autompromo user's page) Pibwl (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Allend6343 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - per COM:PENIS and COM:PORN - no need for new exhibitionist collections of low quality amateur porn and dick pics - none in use

INeverCry 08:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Alan (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Allend6343 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope

Hystrix (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third file is being used, also it likely took some good timing to get the photo shot.199.119.232.209 10:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, keep the one which is used. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:33, 22 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.

Unused personal photo out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:42, 7 December 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.

No EXIF, unclear permission Zoupan (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:혈액형 유전자형 궁합.png

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

copyvio. http://www.poole.ac.jp/daigaku/gakuchou_aisatsu.html Not free license. Los688 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio Alan (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Devlin crow (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These images are attributed to Devlin Crow. However, the uploader has repeatedly stated that they are not Devlin Crow ([8] [9] [10]) and no evidence has been provided that Devlin Crow has released the images under licences stated.

See also en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 29#File:Artists & Couple Devlin & Kennedy Crow.jpg and en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 25#File:The Anatomists Notebook - by Devlin Crow.jpeg.

Psychonaut (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this is a case of the same account being operated by multiple people, one of whom may be Devlin Crow. The account's operator, or one of the operators, contacted me on my talk page. I advised them to get in touch with OTRS to confirm the copyright licensing for the images; see User talk:Psychonaut#Devlin Crow images. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Anatomists Notebook.jpg is a copy of a Leonardo da Vinci sketch from the Royal Collection Trust https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/919058/recto-the-cranium-sectioned-verso-the-skull-sectioned Rybkovich (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it can probably be deleted on grounds of redundancy rather than suspected copyright violation. Hopefully the real Devlin Crow (or whoever holds the copyright to the remaining images) will get in touch with OTRS. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The actual, better quality and whole page image is not in the da Vinci anatomy category. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci. Should I wait until this issue is resolved and upload a better version? If the image stays I can upload the better version and ask for deletion of this one? Rybkovich (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Crow version is pretty low quality; I don't think it needs to be saved pending provision of a better one. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted per nominator and precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope. COM:OTRS permission is needed Alan (talk) 10:46, 7 December 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.

Packages of Morinaga products

[edit]

Per COM:PACKAGING; Trademarked Morinaga products. Yasu (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:47, 7 December 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.

1982 statue (cf. ja:泉重千代). Fails COM:FOP#Japan. Yasu (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:47, 7 December 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.

Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:PauseOnline). MER-C 15:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:47, 7 December 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per Eugene Alan (talk) 10:47, 7 December 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused video presentation of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per Eugene Alan (talk) 10:48, 7 December 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.

Copyvio: Logo of HC Vantaa Geohakkeri (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Wojciech Olejnik (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Alan (talk) 10:48, 7 December 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.

Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per Taivo Alan (talk) 10:50, 7 December 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.

Personal photo? Siyuwj (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: "travel" personal photo, unused, out of scope Alan (talk) 10:53, 7 December 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.

Unused personal files are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:53, 7 December 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.

Derivative work of video with unknown copyright status. Taivo (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:52, 7 December 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.

Personal photo? Siyuwj (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of scope Alan (talk) 10:52, 7 December 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.

Personal photo? Siyuwj (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: "family" photo, unused Alan (talk) 10:52, 7 December 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.

Not too simple logo (curves and image of the wings are too complex to be licence-free) Sfs90 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:50, 7 December 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.

Not too simple logo (curves and image of the wings are too complex to be licence-free) Sfs90 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:50, 7 December 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.

Not too simple logo (curves and image of the wings are too complex to be licence-free) Sfs90 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:50, 7 December 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.

Not too simple logo (curves and image of the wings are too complex to be licence-free) Sfs90 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: complex logo Alan (talk) 10:53, 7 December 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.

Unused and replaced by superior File:DEU Landkreis Helmstedt COA.svg; vectorisation of the Stadler version but no official source, that this version was in use; no educational purpose. - TalkingToTurtles (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:54, 7 December 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.

unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Alan (talk) 10:55, 7 December 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.

This image is not used in any page of Wikipedia 177.249.136.205 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unused Alan (talk) 10:55, 7 December 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.

porque no todos los datos se ven correctamente Juliatico1516 (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unused, courtesy deletion Alan (talk) 10:56, 7 December 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.

unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just precise, I nominate this kind of image when I found it in media needing category, now it is categorized, I more to be neutral. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per cmts Alan (talk) 10:57, 7 December 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.

unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The photographer is a professional news photographer. Sahabat kecil = young friends in Malay, this photograph could be used to illustrate friendship, etc. Unused does mean we should delete high quality imagery which could be useful for someone on or off WMF projects. Ausdfat (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just precise, I nominate this kind of image when I found it in media needing category, now it is categorized, I more to be neutral. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per cmts Alan (talk) 10:58, 7 December 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.

Rights for this book cover are with the publishing house, not the author of the book or the photographer. Albinfo (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

probably taken from http://dedeahmeti.weebly.com/publishings.html --Albinfo (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:58, 7 December 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.

discussion board as source Albinfo (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree. Source unclear. José Luiz disc 00:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:58, 7 December 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.

Unused coat of arms with wrong shape of escutcheon. Correct version here: File:DEU Landkreis Helmstedt COA.svg. No official source, that this version was in use; no educational purpose. - TalkingToTurtles (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 10:59, 7 December 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.

image taken from http://dedeahmeti.weebly.com/gallery.html Albinfo (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that File:Dede Ahmet Myftar Ahmataj.jpg is also grabbed from the web. Date is wrong as the person died in 1980. --Albinfo (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 10:59, 7 December 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.

don't seems to be an own ork --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 10:59, 7 December 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.

Even when blurred, I can see a blurred graffiti of Mona Lisa with a heart. I don't see a raspberry tongue in blur, but the category spoils it. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rue Croulebarbe (Paris 12).jpg, this image should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep de minimis. The photographer has taken specific care not to include a clear picture of the graffiti. Finnusertop (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Nevermind, as it has been edited in post production. I have no opinion. Finnusertop (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Alan (talk) 11:01, 7 December 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.

no sign, that the uploader is copyright holder - same for [[:File:Pictură Ștefan Triffa 03.jpg] Pibwl (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted per precautionary principle. See Commons:Licensing and project scope Alan (talk) 11:00, 7 December 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.

Clearly original design and thus protected by copyright L.tak (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Alan (talk) 11:00, 7 December 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.

very bad quality, low resolution, blurry better: File:DyvekeSigbritsdochter.jpg Oursana (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unused Alan (talk) 11:03, 7 December 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.

dup with File:2004년 6월 서울특별시 종로구 정부종합청사 초대 권욱 소방방재청장 취임식 DSC 0045.JPG 최광모 (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: in use at kowiki. Use {{Duplicate}} Alan (talk) 11:03, 7 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Redirection Alan (talk) 11:05, 7 December 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.

Duplicate of File:Security units special marine.png. Kwasura (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: redirection (duplicate file) Wdwd (talk) 12:58, 7 December 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.

Inferior duplicate of File:Royal Saudi Air Defense Forces Logo2.svg. Kwasura (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: redirection to croped version Wdwd (talk) 12:52, 7 December 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.

Duplicate of File:Flag of the Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force3.png. Kwasura (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: redirection (duplicate file) Wdwd (talk) 12:58, 7 December 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 homepage matrial, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom, no permission Wdwd (talk) 13:01, 7 December 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.

Inferior duplicate of File:Saudi special security forces.png. Kwasura (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: redirect (duplicate file) Wdwd (talk) 13:04, 7 December 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.

unused personal(?) photo, one of two user's uploads. The other seems out of scope as well File:Swiss2006 015.jpg Pibwl (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unsed personal photo -> out-of-scope. Wdwd (talk) 13:06, 7 December 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.

No notability Ziad (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: file duplicate (File:صورة زبن حشر الثقيل.jpeg), redir. Wdwd (talk) 13:39, 7 December 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.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/2014/09/13/13/27/cardboard-444090__180.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom. Wdwd (talk) 13:43, 7 December 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.

Uploader does not appear to be Corey Graham, so not "own work". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio. Wdwd (talk) 13:47, 7 December 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.

again, no offense, but DR as per File:Sangeeth kollam at location.jpg, Roland zh (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: not own work. P 1 9 9   14:26, 10 December 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.

again, no offense, but DR as per File:Sangeeth kollam at location.jpg, Roland zh (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: not own work. P 1 9 9   14:26, 10 December 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.

a gallery page with only 1 file is not necessary Oursana (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: P 1 9 9   14:29, 10 December 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.

inferior duplicate of File:DEU Aichen COA.svg  MaxxL - talk 10:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Someone tagged the image for speedy deletion, but they're not identical. Until I saw that you'd already done it, I was going to nominate this for deletion, with a rationale of "This file was initially tagged by Perhelion as a duplicate of File:DEU Aichen COA.svg, but it's not; the oak leaves have different shapes, for example. But is there a reason to keep this one when the other's so heavily used, and the differences are so minimal? Since both of these images are drawn from the same blazon, both are presumably correct; we can't say that this one is better or worse than the other." Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete You are right, both are not fully identical to the original. Both we don't need several artistic user-redrawn versions of one and same original.User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  13:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: P 1 9 9   14:35, 10 December 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.

Out of scope Alan (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unused personal photo. P 1 9 9   14:37, 10 December 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.

Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope McZusatz (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Closing DR: already deleted. --P 1 9 9   14:40, 10 December 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.

Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. The letter e is not simple. Taivo (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Type faces, however complex, have no copyright in the USA, so this would be {{PD-Textlogo}} in the USA. I don't know about Malaysia, though. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-textlogo. P 1 9 9   14:42, 10 December 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.

Obviously not a selfie, and no source, also note promotional/self-promotional nature of upload and en:wiki user page to which it is attached. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 15:51, 28 August 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.

self-promoting image of a user who didn't make other contributions at all. Previously deleted, see:[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emmanuel Jack.jpg] ProfessorX (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unused personal photo, out of scope. --P 1 9 9   14:44, 10 December 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.

Out of project scope? At least the file is unused. Taivo (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as per nom. P 1 9 9   14:45, 10 December 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.

License statement that "All right to this picture belong to me, but it may be used here for specific purposes requested" may not be compatible with Wikimedia commons, which requires that images be licensed in such as way as to allow any use, including commercial. The OTRS tag confirms that proper permission was not received. Ahecht (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There's no hint that this is not a copyvio.. Wait for OTSR process to resolve, per Storkk below. Barte (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment It may well turn out to be a copyvio, but there are hints that it may not be: 1) Splash News is credited both in the EXIF and the file description. Overcredited, you might even say... this is unusual for a straight newspaper photo copyvio. 2) OTRS was used - not to my satisfaction yet, but that is also unusual for a straightforward copyvio. I requested clarification on 11 October for what it's worth. So it is very possibly a copyvio - but there are hints that it might not be. In any case, if deleted and the OTRS clarification does come through, it can easily be restored. Storkk (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Question @Storkk: How long would you typically allow for a satisfactory OTRS clarification? Given your comment, I'm inclined to let the process unfold, if the time is less than infinite. Barte (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Barte: I think a week to 10 days is usually more than enough, and since undeletion is not a big challenge, I don't think it needs to be agonized over. The possibility, however minuscule, that a news desk would freely license celebrity photos might tip the balance to waiting a little longer in order not to jeopardize their good will, but it's admittedly a tiny chance. Storkk (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • One thing to keep in mind is that the uploader, who is claiming to be the photographer Said Elatab (they uploaded as "own work" and linked the name Said Eletab to their userpage), has a history of uploading celebrity photographs by other photographers with fake licensing information (such as File_talk:Justin_Bieber_2015.jpg). --Ahecht (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • And another is that even taken at face value, the alleged statement from the photographer is incompatible with a CC license: All right [sic] to this picture belong to me, but it may be used here for specific purposes requested. The only thing we don't have is the OTRS correspondence. But the case for keeping would seem to hang by a thread. Barte (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Likely copyvio. It's a flipped image (original here), which could have been done to avoid detection by reverse image searches. Melonkelon (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. This is just the latest in a series of attempts to upload a post-transition image of Jenner that has been cropped and flipped to avoid detection. I would suggest salting the image name File:Caitlyn Jenner.jpg as well, at least for now. --Ahecht (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:23, 20 October 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.

Flickr washing ? Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure. It's their only upload. It was uploaded on 29 November and transferred to Commons on the same day, which is suspicious but it's not unusual for editors to check Flickr often to see if any new images have been uploaded. Limited metadata. Melonkelon (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, except that's exactly what I was doing. I really wanted to find a good picture of Caitlyn once and for all, you know... HalloweenNight (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure, as well. It does look like an airport fan photo, as opposed to a professional shot. But no info as to which airport or confirmation of the 11/25 date it was purportedly shot. Barte (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is extremely suspicious is that the Flickr username (a new Flickr user that only uploaded this one image) is "Kevin Winter", which is similar to the name of Kevin Winters, the Getty Images photographer that took the widely publicized professional photos of Jenner at the ESPY awards. In fact, a Flickr account named "Kevin Winters Photography" (which has now been removed) was used to flickrwash copyrighted Getty Images photographs of Justin Bieber and Caitlyn Jenner (see File_talk:Justin_Bieber_2015.jpg). Also, I believe that the uploader HalloweenNight tried to upload one of the Kevin Winters Getty Images photographs to Wikipedia here with a claim of fair use that was later speedy deleted (I can't see the deleted file so I'm not sure if it was one of the Kevin Winters images that was deleted). --Ahecht (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody uses their real name on Flickr, though. Too many security breaches to trust their mess lol HalloweenNight (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above link is dead or you need an account, but I see the picture here. Barte (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed above. --Ahecht (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: likely Flickr washing, unreliable source that has since been removed from Flickr. --P 1 9 9   14:50, 10 December 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.

Rights for this book cover are with the publishing house, not the author of the book or the photographer Albinfo (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

probably taken from http://dedeahmeti.weebly.com/publishings.html --Albinfo (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9   14:51, 10 December 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.

lacks of source for the used images --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9   14:54, 10 December 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.

Duplicate of upload with much higher resolution (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pomological_Watercolor_POM00007116.jpg) ParkerHiggins (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: duplicate of File:Pomological Watercolor POM00007116.jpg. P 1 9 9   14:53, 10 December 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.

It is clearly not public domain, having a tag in the middle. Also, this does not depict Sokol Baci. Zoupan (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk:Sokol Baci.--Zoupan (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 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.

Incorrectly colored duplicate of File:Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force emblem.png. Kwasura (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: seems to be redirected Natuur12 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 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.

unused, out of scope, as well as File:Leve-me pra sair 6.png. It isn't clear, why other user's uploads are supposed to be in scope (unused, no category, no useful description). Pibwl (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 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.

dup with cat 최광모 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 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.

This file was initially tagged by Superbenjamin as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Uploaded from another website|source=http://www.photos-marseille.fr/2009/07/04/le-prado-depuis-les-sept-portes-de-jerusalem/ Alan (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to by RP88's request. Alan (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the uploader is not to be trusted with regards to identifying their sources (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Artinmarseille99) but in this case the photo from photos-marseille.fr (direct link to image) is not a match. They're similar because they appear to be taken from the same location. Note that they differ in details, i.e. the photo from photos-marseille.fr has people on the beach in the background while this photo from this uploader does not, the shadows fall in different directions, etc.—RP88 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 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.

Recent artwork. No FoP in France. Not really de minimis here. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: In Marseilles. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 4 February 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.

Cette image, que le joueur a posté sur son compte twitter (comme l'indique la description), n'est sûrement pas l'oeuvre de Georges-Kévin Nkoudo (comme indiqué dans la description) et n'est sûrement pas libre de droit. Bounè rodzo (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 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.

the sources of this derivative works are needed --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 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.

not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 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.

This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as no license (No license since). However, Per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images The Photographer (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have written to the photographer and asked her/him the clarify if the photo can be used on Wikimedia. If the photographer agree, then change the licence to a Creative Commons licence CC BY-SA or similar. Uleli (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Blythwood Ezarateesteban 19:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bissorte (talk · contribs) 1

[edit]

COM:COPYVIOs. No indication of user's own work on these book pages, book/magazine/newspaper covers, group shots, black and white photos, color photos, several with edges and edgeprinting to show that they're not just a photo print.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


 Kept, Old cards/book covers are clearly Ok, they are published ~100 years ago and are either anonymous or by James Condamin (1844-1929). Deleted recent images. Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bissorte (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

Keep

[edit]

Delete

[edit]

To be checked further

[edit]

Merci de corriger la source, l'auteur et la licence de ces documents. / Please correct the source, the author, et the license of these documents.


____________________________________

see fr:Éditeurs français de cartes postales

Yann (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

________________

Bonjour,

Pouvez-vous m'indiquer, s'il vous plaît, les modalités de procédure pour corriger ces fichiers ?

Merci.

--Bissorte (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bissorte: Pour exemple: File:École Primaire Supérieure professionnelle, Dax (Landes).jpg date: 23 octobre 2015, 21:19:54 ==> date: 19.. ou vers 19..(selon le cas) source:carte postale ancienne ==> source: carte postale ancienne, collection personnelle de Bissorte ou carte postale ancienne, site web.... (selon le cas) ; et auteur:Bissorte ==> auteur:J.David, photographe, scan by :Bissorte (si la source est la collection personnelle) ou J.David, photographe(si la source est un site web). Et ajoutez, si possible, la categorie du lieu (Dax), la categorie du sujet (Schools in Landes) et/ou la categorie de l'artiste. Autre exemple: File:Ve Centenaire de Jeanne d'Arc, Rouen, 1931.jpg, j'ai rempli la fiche, voir les différences, sauf la source, à vous de la donner. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The postcards can not stay with CC license, however many of them could use {{PD-anon-1923}} if photographer was not mentioned on the postcard and it was printed before 1923. Also {{PD-anon-70-EU}} could be used for postcards printed without photographer name between 1923 and 1945. When photographer is known than it should be listed and we should try to determine his year of death. --Jarekt (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many of the postcards are probably OK. If the French wartime extensions were added to the anonymous term (not sure on that), then you'd probably have to subtract 9 years or so from 1945 -- so postcards through 1936 or so should be OK, otherwise they would still have been copyrighted in France in 1996 and there would be URAA issues in the US even though they would be fine in France now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader is changing many files to PD-old or PD-old-70-1923 when the author is unknown -- unless the work is from the 1860s or maybe 1870s that should not be done. If we at least know the work is anonymous, i.e. the first publication (such as on a postcard), then we can use PD-anon-1923. But if we don't know the publication history at all and we don't know the author, we can't claim that photos only 100 years old are more than 70 years past the death of the photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Daniel Lefeuvre 2007.jpg from the original list appears to come from http://etudescoloniales.canalblog.com/archives/2013/11/05/28368217.html and appears to be credited to a Michel Renard. Not sure why that was kept before. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) @Clindberg: It is however, according to the metadata, a photo from 2007, uploaded as photo by uploader, and canalblog is from 2013. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC) @Havang(nl): It was only uploaded here three months ago. It is the exact same file as the one posted on canalblog two years ago (byte for byte). That normally requires COM:OTRS confirmation as it was previously published elsewhere first. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, OTRS is recommendable, as it has been published earlier. But it cannot be a copie from canalblog, as such a copie, passing by download to the PC and upload, should have other metadata. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Download and upload programs typically do not modify the file or metadata. The file here is a straight copy of the one there (which has the same 2007 metadata), unmodified. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_____________

J'ai corrigé la source et la licence de File:Daniel Lefeuvre 2007.jpg.

Cordialement.

--Bissorte (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new license (PD-ineligible) is not correct -- photographs are copyrightable. We need a license from Mr. Renard via the COM:OTRS process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L'auteur a adressé un courriel à COM:OTRS.

Cordialement.

--Bissorte (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Plusieurs cartes sont du photographe F.Gonon, Saint-Chamond, Depuis 4 générations Photo Gonon: [20]. Il faudra identifier toutes les cartes de ce photographe dans la liste ci-dessus et il serait souhaitable de les marquer: auteur: F.Gonon, Photographe [21]. Quelle sera la licence approprié? {{PD-old-70}}? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is where things get hard. If there is a named author, we can't claim it's anonymous. But we also can't claim PD-old-70 unless there is a very good case that the author did die at least 70 years ago. He opened a studio in 1888, which pushes his latest possible birthdate back to the 1860s at least, but if so and he lived into his 80s then the work would still be under copyright. It doesn't help that he had a grandson named the same, as we could find references to the latter. If we could find examples of earlier works, that could push his assumed birthdate back, or if we know when his sons were born, that might push assumed ages back (for example if his sons were born in the 1870s then he would probably be a bit older). Unfortunately the only references I have seen are for later dates... There is a mention of him here which shows him as a subscriber to a 1906 book by (heh) Jean-Francois Gonon, a different person. An inventory here lists photos by "F Ganon" from 1912 and 1925. Is that the grandson (who per your link specialized more in cinema), or the postcard photographer? If the mention of being a near-contemporary of Nicéphore Niépce (died 1833) can be taken literally, then perhaps he was much older by 1888, and we can assume PD-old-70. Would like to find at least some additional evidence though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh. There is a book about St Chamond being sold here which is by a François Ganon from 1945; it claims his life dates are 1864-1958 (GONON François 1864-1958 SAINT-ÉTIENNE). That person is also listed here. If they are the same person (seems likely), then those photos are under copyright until 2029. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
J'avais un doute: auteur du livre sur la paroisse Notre-Dame est François Gonon O.A. => Ordo Augustiniensium ? ET puis, d'auttres livres du même auteur http://www.priceminister.com/s/fran%e7ois+gonon http://www.ebay.fr/itm/1942-Humanite-etudes-medicales-Francois-Gonon-nevrose-medecine-/291319139261 --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the idref.fr page, I assume O. A. means "Officier d'Académie". Yes, the 1864-1958 Gonon did start authoring books later in life -- on this page there are books from 1937 (Un forézien célèbre : Claude Javogues (1759-1796)), 1943 (Causeries amicales sur des sujets variés), 1945 (Notre vieux Saint-Chamond, la paroisse Notre-Dame et son histoire), and 1947 (Villages foréziens de la plaine). The 1942 book you found is another one, it looks like. If you look at that eBay auction you found for Humanité, the last image shows an interior page of the book, where there is a photo with the credit "F. G."[22] -- might make sense that Gonon ended up with a second career as an historian in his retirement, being able to illustrate books with his own photographs. I think I have seen a description of one of those books as being illustrated with photos. There is another book author who lived in the area, Jean-Francois Gonon, who lived from 1856-1926 but that is a different person. I agree that it isn't 100% proof it's the same person but... how many people named Francois Gonon could live in that area with plausible life dates? 1864-1958 seem to match up pretty well (opened a business at age 24, took photos into the 1920s at least with what I found above, etc.). I would like to find better proof but it does "feel" right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the credit is for the publisher rather than the photographer, it should be {{PD-anon-70-EU}} rather than {{PD-old-70}}, as the publisher's copyright last for 70 years after publication, not 70 years pma. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Technical close at this point, as there is not much progress and it is unlikely that anybody is going to make a decision for the whole bunch. Please renominate in smaller, more sorted batches. --Krd 16:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per above --Krd 16:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bissorte (talk · contribs) 3

[edit]

Some of these files are missing information on author/date, some have this information, but are still copyrighted.

________________________________________

Didym (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is which? If the works are anonymous, then of course there won't be information on the author. You marked File:Achille Jacopin, 1903.jpg for deletion, but the source at BnF clearly marks that as public domain, so presumably that is {{PD-anon-70-EU}} (it does need a license change, but is a keep). Given the dates, a number of the others may be OK if actually anonymous, which I'm sure some are. Some do look to be still under copyright, or at least U.S. copyright. Bulk DRs for a number of different reasons can be difficult (see previous ones), since we have to go through them one by one and re-research the reasons you thought they should be deleted when it may not be clear, rather than arguing one particular reason and deleting all that fall under that same reasoning. And it looks like this is the same situation -- a number should be kept, some should likely be deleted, but it's a lot of work to do that one by one. If you could separate them into ones which have author information, ones which don't but are anonymous, and ones which are basically unknown, that would be a help. Any which qualify for {{PD-anon-70-EU}} (and are PD in the US) should be kept. That will be true of lots of old postcards. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Some Kept (anonymous, PD-ineligible), some Deleted. --Yann (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]