Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/04/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
No proof of ownership CHEFXDESIGNS (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader also agrees to delete. Taivo (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The person pictured is not prominent - seems to be copied from other webpage (see low resolution) Eingangskontrolle (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope and probably a copyvio found elsewhere on the web. NNW 10:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused image of non-notable person Domdomegg (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyright no expirado: Opazo murió en 1979; quien la subió probablemente consideraba que todas las imágenes de Memoria Chilena están en el dominio público, pero no es así; cuando lo están, se establece claramente con la frase "Patrimonio cultural común". Raimundo75 (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://xovelo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CanalBike-12-Edit-JVLphoto.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Raymond 14:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope (and likely copyvio). — Racconish ☎ 13:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and found on https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xt/112192214.jpg%3Fv%3D1%26g%3Dfs1%257C0%257CLRM%257C92%257C214%26s%3D1&imgrefurl=http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/giant-panda-cub-native-to-china-high-res-stock-photography/112186126&h=128&w=170&tbnid=YJf6Ik2h8lMkRM&tbnh=102&tbnw=136&usg=__Y5uIm2Ab5fumv-Nb-NXN1OZMIvI=&docid=cIoTIXpE6NnwNM. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain - It is under the property rights of the Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Urgh, this is getting patently ridiculous. It's public domain, because copyright is expired as it's more than 125+ years old. Any copyright claim is invalid as it would constitute "perpetual copyright" and thus be void under U.S. law, which is the country of origin in this case. Need I continue? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Historical photograph from the 1850s, copyright has clearly expired. -Zanhe (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
File:The Burns Archive, Shooting Soldiers, Civil War Medical Photography by Dr. R.B. Bontecou.jpg
[edit]This image is not in the public domain - It is under the property rights of the Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Reproductions of old 2D works does not give new copyright. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- A 19th century image (1860) must be in the public domain, or what? The Burns Archive may own the physical photograph, but not the image. — bertux 20:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Copyright already expired. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain. It is under the property rights of The Burns Archive. Blizamiel (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: clear copyfraud. --Ankry (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.santacomba.es/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/escudo-concello-santa-comba-ESTRECHO.jpg 37.10.132.206 13:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
because I'm done with it 72.173.184.167 14:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Component images unlikely to be the work of the uploader, and aren't identified per COM:Collages Ahecht (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ラーマ as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: I uploaded this image by error.. Regular deletion request is created to determine, does the cover design surpass threshold of originality. Maybe this is textlogo. Taivo (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: I uploaded this image by error.
Blatant copyright violation. Photo metadata clearly says copyright is owned by Europics and not free. Zanhe (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Clearly a copyrighted photo lifted from a website. Zanhe (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Speedydeleted as clear {{Copyvio}}. --Martin H. (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Photo seems to have been copied from commercial websites such as http://www.vop.co.kr/A00000981913.html Zanhe (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Blatant {{Copyvio}}. --Martin H. (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The user has uploaded quite a few copyrighted photos of celebrities to the Commons. Unlikely to be own work. Zanhe (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Speedydeleted as clear {{Copyvio}}. --Martin H. (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The user has uploaded quite a few copyrighted photos of celebrities to the Commons. Unlikely to be own work. Zanhe (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Speedydeleted as clear {{Copyvio}}. --Martin H. (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Clearly copyrighted photo copied from a commercial website. Zanhe (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This file was license reviewed, it comes from [1], notice the CC-BY icon at the bottom. Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're right. Someone had removed the license review information from the file [2], so I missed that. Withdrawn. -Zanhe (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nominator. --Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Photomontage douteux, out of scope. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh ben celui là encore...pour illustrer un article un peu plus "historique"...(je passais juste par hasard, pas là pour lancer un quelconque débat ;)) Triton (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- C'est peut-être une démarche artistique mais ce n'est pas de nature encyclopédique. --Yelkrokoyade (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- L'ajout de quelques personnages dont l'échelle me semble douteuse ne fait pas passer l'effet de l'objectif grand angle qui aurait probablement dû être corrigé avant. --Cqui (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- photomontage sans intérêt - Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 07:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It has no sources whatsoever, I opened a discussion a month ago and the author never replied, and on top of that, according to the description he used "data" from the year 2000, that's 16 years ago and quite outdated. El bart089 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The map is widely used, so it cannot be deleted except for copyright violation. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
This map has NO SOURCES, I opened a discussion and no one ever replied, the author was notified and he didn't reply either. Further more the map has inaccurate "data" from over 16 years ago, which even if it was correct (which is not) it would be extremely outdated.
I already nominated it for deletion but the person who saw it refused to delete it simply because "it was used in many articles", which is an absurd reason to keep it considering that they all copied it in the first place.
Keeping this erroneous map would be spreading wrong information and promoting Wikipedia inaccuracy. Supaman89 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept, it does not matter, how bad, erroneous and misleading the map is. It is widely used and therefore in our project scope. Taivo (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, if I create an image that says that half the population of the United States is of Asian descent and then make a bunch of copies of it in different Wikpedias and then add that image to a bunch of articles promoting missinformation should we also keep that because it is "widely used"? Supaman89 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: :Lo lamento, no he estado muy activo últimamente en la wikipedia, de manera que no me entero pronto de estas cuestiones. El mapa no es erróneo ni constituye una violación de los derechos de autor. Este mapa está basado en Suárez, Jorge A. (1993). Mesoamerican indian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xiv-xv. Procederé a colocar la referencia en estos mapas. En el tiempo en que fue subida la imagen esto no era estrictamente necesario. Yavidaxiu (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fæ as no permission (No permission since). I restored the file due to the discusion on my talk page. JuTa 10:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Kein Löschgrund erkennbar, ich zitiere die obige Stellungnahme des Hochladers: "El mapa no es erróneo ni constituye una violación de los derechos de autor. Este mapa está basado en Suárez, Jorge A. (1993). Mesoamerican indian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xiv-xv." Als Urheber ist folglich Benutzer @Yavidaxiu einzutragen (Own Work), was aber jetzt ohnehin schon der Fall ist. Based on free data, no copyright violation can be alleged.--Jordi (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @JuTa: . I do not understand the restoration. Could you explain that here for the record, rather than referring to talk page discussions?
- Where exactly is the verifiable source of the underpinning map, i.e. not the overlaid user created synthesis of data?
- If the data is a derived work from a map in Mesoamerican indian languages, then the original map is sufficiently creative to be copyrighted (there's simply no "hard" data that makes this a pure data driven chart) and consequently the overlaid map fails COM:PRP.
- Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- The numerical data is from CDI-Conapo, as told in the file (CDI, now INPI, is the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, Conapo is the Mexican Census Authority Consejo Nacional de Población). The geographical data is based on Suárez' map (1983) which does not constitute any problem, neither (only hard data without creative activity). The graphical representation is from the uploader. There is nothing doubtful about it, at all. All based on free data, no copyright violation can be alleged.--Jordi (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, this does not make the map verifiable as far as I can see.
- It is not credible that the detailed coloured regions on the overlay map are a "graphical representation" "from the uploader", these zones must be from somewhere. This is not "numerical data" as literally there is no "numerical data" displayed.
- Neither has any source been given that can be verified for the under-pinning map. Again this is not "from the uploader" as it is not credible that the uploader drew a detailed map of a country from their imagination. If it is a public domain map, exactly where is the source, and can we verify its copyright please, per COM:PRP and COM:L?
- Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing we have to verify. The uploader made a map based on governmental data, that's all. It is his responsibility that the data provided is correct, has nothing to do with copyright or permission. If the information provided by uploader is not correct, this wouldn't be a reason to delete his work. You just have to trust him.
- The numerical data the uploader relies on and takes his information from (for the whole series of maps he uploaded) is the number of speakers for each language in the year 2000. This information is from governmental sources, as he tells us in his file (CDI-Conapo). It is free data and he is free to make a map about it and upload it to Wikimedia Commons.
- The geographical data the uploader relies on is provided by a map in a book by Jorge A. Suárez from 1983 (as stated in the file description). You can see the original map in the book using the link I provided above (it is named: "Map 1. Present day distribution of Mesoamerican Indian languages"). This data refers to the geographical delimitations to limit the region where each language is spoken. This is hard data taken from a scholarly publication and the uploader is free to take it for the purpose of making a map he wants to upload to Wikimedia Commons.
- There is nothing wrong with it, no copyright violation can be alleged and no permission is missing. Your action of pointing out a "no permission since" was simply a mistake or misunderstanding, your fault not his. The author of this file is just the uploader himself (own work) as stated in the file description. There is no reason at all which justifies deletion.--Jordi (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is not how COM:PRP works. The copyright of this map has been called into question, and should be considered a copyright violation unless a source for the map can be produced. In this case the underpinning map, for which zero evidence has been produced that it meets COM:L, and the detailed map of areas that has been overlaid, again for which there is no verifiable source or explanation of how it was produced, apart from vaguely waiving at a copyrighted book that it does not match.
- No, this is not what COM:PRP is about. The copyright owner is the uploader who made the map, there is no assumable violation of copyright here. COM:PRP deals with cases where the uploader published a file whose copyright belongs to a third party, which is not the case here. Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission for a usage where such permission is required. In this case, there is no permission required because the protected work was entirely made by the uploader himself. The data he used for it is not protected by copyright, so he needs no permission by a third party.
- On the other hand, if by "underpinning map" you mean the general map of Mexico and its States (light grey parts of the image), this isn't protected, neither. Such a general map of Mexican States is widely used on Commons in all files which are based on a blank map of Mexico. Of course, using one of the blank maps of Mexico listed in our Category of the same name is not a reason for requesting Deletion of a file.--Jordi (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- The link you provided to "Map 1" in The Mesoamerican Indian Languages, it does not appear to match. If it matches a different map in that copyrighted work, then it is a derived work. --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Read carefully what I wrote, pls. The Suárez map is used as data source, it is visible in Google Books to me and others, but the pages available on Google Books may differ from country to country.--Jordi (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously, there are more data sources the uploader has been using to compile the statistics for his maps. As he tells us the data is from governmental institutions like CDI-Conapo. We do not know exactely if and to what extent the reported results are accurate. They seemingly are, if you compare his maps with similar maps and sheets based on the data provided by INEGI, CDI or other Mexican Government Agencies, but we don't know. However, this has nothing to do with the copyright status of the file. Even if the uploader has invented or misrepresented the public data he claims to use, this would affect only the reliability of the file, but not the copyright, which belongs unquestionably to the uploader, since he has drawn the map. So there is no significant doubt about the freedom of this particular file and no reasonable cause to call it "into question", as you say. Precautionary principle thus does not apply in the way you want to trigger it.--Jordi (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is not how COM:PRP works. The copyright of this map has been called into question, and should be considered a copyright violation unless a source for the map can be produced. In this case the underpinning map, for which zero evidence has been produced that it meets COM:L, and the detailed map of areas that has been overlaid, again for which there is no verifiable source or explanation of how it was produced, apart from vaguely waiving at a copyrighted book that it does not match.
- The numerical data is from CDI-Conapo, as told in the file (CDI, now INPI, is the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, Conapo is the Mexican Census Authority Consejo Nacional de Población). The geographical data is based on Suárez' map (1983) which does not constitute any problem, neither (only hard data without creative activity). The graphical representation is from the uploader. There is nothing doubtful about it, at all. All based on free data, no copyright violation can be alleged.--Jordi (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @JuTa: . I do not understand the restoration. Could you explain that here for the record, rather than referring to talk page discussions?
- Using many words, you agree with the facts about copyright:
- The underpinning map has not been identified. It is not File:Mexico_Map.svg as there are many detail differences. Copyright has not been verified, nor even claimed as being public domain or something else. This is grounds for deletion per COM:PRP.
- The overlay of very detailed areas has no verifiable source, it is extremely detailed and is not a simple user "imagining" of what these zones would look like, nor can it be created from a simple table of data. Vaguely waiving at an increasingly large number of possible sources, is not verification. Copyright has not been verified, and this may be an unstated derived work and is grounds for deletion, per COM:DW and COM:PRP.
- --Fæ (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Many words or few words do not matter, what is important is the content of the arguments.
- 1. The underpinning map is just a blank map of Mexico, it is identical with the map shown above from our Category "Blank maps of Mexico", further details (different tone of grey and missing emphasis of the City of Mexico, I cannot see any more) do not matter and are not protectable. Blank maps of Mexico are widely used on Commons for all purposes imaginable and obviously do not constitute a valid reason for requesting deletion of a derived file.
- 2. The data for the detailed areas is not protectable by copyright. Also, there is no increasingly large number of possible sources, it is just that you didn't understand the remark "Fuente: CDI-Conapo" which has been shown in the file ever since.
- 3. The data sources are only important in order to verify if the map is reliable (for example, if you want to use it for an article in Wikipedia). Has nothing to do with copyright. The freedom from copyright is sufficiently shown by the fact that the data is free and that the uploader has drawn the map by himself, no matter where he took the data from.--Jordi (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Some facts:
- If two maps are different, they are not "identical". Your claim that File:Mexico_Map.svg was the underpinning map was factually and demonstrably incorrect.
- "data for the detailed areas is not protectable by copyright" is literally a correct statement, however the fact is that the artistic creations represented by the areas drawn on this map are sufficiently creative to have copyright. They are not tables of data, nor are they simple polygons generated by a table of data. These drawn areas have no verifiable source but are so detailed, they appear to have been copied or traced from a published source which has not been declared. COM:PRP applies.
- The underpinning map does visually match File:Mexico_states_blank.png, a source which was not declared. However this map has no source and the statement of own work is not credible. That map has been marked as no source and may itself be subject to deletion if a source remains undeclared. It is also the case that the png map is lower resolution than the file this deletion request is about, it remains unlikely that that specific png file was used as the underpinning map, there may be yet another source for the original, higher resolution, underpinning map.
- Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The maps #1 ("Mexico Map.svg") and #2 (underpinning map of our file) are identical in respect to copyright aspects, there is no protectable difference between them in terms of copyright protection.
- There is no artistic creation in a map using alphanumerical and graphical data from elsewhere in order to show the geographical extension of the use of different languages. If there were any creative credits in drawing such a map these would be the uploader's credits only, because he has drawn the map by himself. The geographical delimitation of cities or urban hinterlands or other areas are not protectable and the uploader is free to represent these zones as detailed as ever he likes to do it, using any source he can reach to.
- For copyright purposes the free source has not to be declared, it is sufficient that the source is factually free.
- It is not necessary that a specific png file was used for creating that underpinning map. The copyright does not protect any specific file, but only the content, which is identical in all three (and many other) files. There is no acceptable reason for requesting deletion of a file only because it is based on a blank map of Mexico widely used in the Wikimedia universe.
- Thanks! --Jordi (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- These are rather peculiar statements, and they are untrue in the following respects:
- Nobody is debating the copyright of "alphanumerical ond graphical data", not least of which is the fact that no such verifiable source has actually been provided. Vaguely waiving to a shelf of books or websites, is not the same as a verifiable statement that provides real data that can be checked through point by point on the map.
- Different images that are "identical in respect to copyright aspects", is meaningless. You may mean a rationale about derived works, but the fact is that we have not in reality even confirmed that the underpinning map is copyright free, because it has no verifiable source.
- "is sufficient that the source is factually free", this is bizarre. Facts are not facts if they cannot be verifiable. "God exists" may be believed by many people, but it is not a fact.
- Vaguely pointing to lots of other maps, is not proof that the underpinning map is copyright free. No source file has yet been provided that can be verified as copyright free, so no presumption can yet be made that the underpinning map, or the overlaying map of areas, are copyright free. COM:PRP applies because it is fundamentally true that either copyright can be verified, or nobody knows what the copyright is.
- Please stick to facts rather than a form of "proof by exultation" which would be meaningless in a copyright case. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have already told you that the precautionary principle does not apply in the way you want to trigger it, simply because there is no significant doubt about the freedom of this particular file and no reasonable cause to demand a "verifiable statement", as you call it. There is no doubt about copyright issues in this case, it is clearly an "own work" copyright, you can cite "COM:PRP" as often as you want, this changes nothing about the facts I explained to you.--Jordi (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have also explained to you that the maps shown above are identical in all relevant aspects for copyright questions. This is not "meaningless", but a true statement whether you understand it or not.--Jordi (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have also told you that the alphanumerical and graphical data this map is based on is free and hard data which cannot be subject to copyright, because there is no creative activity involved. Alphanumerical data are names of languages, cities or regions and numbers of speakers for each language, graphical data refers to delimitation and location of the cities, subunits or urban hinterlands or other areas the uploader has drawn into his map, i.e. all the data the uploader took from CDI or Conapo sources or from the bookpage he cites (or elsewhere, it doesn't matter from where). None of these informations can be protected by copyright, so your constant hinting to "COM:PRP" (which refers to copyright protection only and needs a third party copyright owner involved who simply does not exist in this case) is meaningless, to say it with your own words, i.e. not relevant for the question we are talking about.--Jordi (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- These are rather peculiar statements, and they are untrue in the following respects:
- Some facts:
- Using many words, you agree with the facts about copyright:
- What you have not provided is:
- a verifiably copyright free file that matches the underpinning map
- the source of the overlaid ranges, which you appear to believe has been automatically generated from something unspecified
- Provide them please.
- Until there are verifiable facts, there is significant doubt per COM:PRP. --Fæ (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not the author of this file. I cannot tell you more than what I already did:
- The underpinning blank map of Mexico is widely used by many, many files on Commons, so it belongs to the project scope and there is no reasonable basis for requesting deletion of an individual file only because it is based on such a blank map of Mexico listed in our Category "Blank maps of Mexico".
- The source for the overlaid ranges is given by the author himself ("Fuente: CDI-Conapo", and he cites Jorge A. Suárez' standard work, page xiv-xv). There is no reasonable doubt that the uploader has drawn the map, so he is the copyright owner. The data he used is free by its nature and cannot be subject to copyright, whereever he took it from. So, we do not need any more information in order to state that the terms of copyright are fulfilled.
- I never said that I believe the file has been automatically generated. I always told you that the uploader has drawn the map and was free to do so without any permission whatsoever. This is because the overlaid ranges are not protectable by copyright since there is no creative activity involved in compiling them.
- It is important that you understand that the "verifiable statement" you demand is not necessary to judge if a copyright was infringed by this map or not, because by nature and definition there cannot be any copyright protection for the kind of things this map shows. Verifying the sources can be important in order to be able to judge if the map is reliable and can be used lets say for an article. But this has nothing to do with copyright. If the map is reliable or not is not our concern in this debate, since the file cannot be deleted except for copyright violation.--Jordi (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not the author of this file. I cannot tell you more than what I already did:
- What you have not provided is:
- It is also important that you understand that your claim that the ranges are so detailed that they "appear to have been copied or traced from a published source"
- firstly, is a mere suspicion without sufficient grounds which cannot trigger COM:PRP, simply because there is no significant (= serious) doubt about the freedom of the file, and
- secondly, there would be nothing wrong with tracing or copying locations, limits or positions from a published source like for instance an atlas to make a map, as long as the map in the atlas is not absolutely identical (like, for instance, a photocopy) with the one you are drawing and the data you are compiling is free. No copyright infringement can be done in this way, and therefore your suspicion is even more exaggerated and completely irrelevant for the copyright status of the file.--Jordi (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you write: COM:PRP applies because it is fundamentally true that either copyright can be verified, or nobody knows what the copyright is.
- This is not true either. Of course we know who the copyright owner is (the person who has drawn the map, i.e. the uploader). There is no significant doubt that the map (like all the oher maps of this series) is his own work. As shown on the right, the series contains eight maps (including the present file, basically three types in different languages), all listed in our Category:Linguistic maps of Indigenous languages of North America and therefore widely used. It is clearly visible that all drawings are from the same author.--Jordi (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Absurd. The uploader did not wake up one day after dreaming about flying in space, with a perfect map of Mexico in their mind, then draw it using their home computer.
- This map was either directly cut and paste from another file, or exported from a mapping tool, or directly traced from another map. Either you can provide the correct source, or COM:PRP required it is removed from the project.
- Your ongoing links to related maps are irrelevant as they provide zero new evidence about copyright, they just create unnecessary tangents and mess up this deletion discussion page. They have exactly the same issue. --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- The absurdity is yours. The uploader used a blank map of Mexico listed in our Category of the same name which is nothing forbidden to do. The same blank map is used in many hundreds of files all over Commons (some of which shown above) and it seems to have been originally uploaded in 2005 by Jacob Rus, well known for his maps of Mexico at that time, as shown in the other file you want to delete. This dispute has nothing to do with the individual file we are discussing here.
- As I tell you all the way, COM:PRP cannot apply in the way you want to have it because there is no serious doubt about the author who has drawn the present map (referring to the number of speakers and geographical ranges of languages shown here, not referring to the underpinning map of Mexico which is of common use). It is irrelevant if he used a mapping tool or traced the limits from an atlas or where he got his data from, since all these things are free and not protected by copyright. The only thing relevant for copyright status is that he has drawn the map by himself and not photocopied or pasted an existing map drawn by another person. Only the drawing can be protected by copyright, not the content or data of the map.--Jordi (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- No verifiable sources = significant doubt.
- Your claim " all these things are free and not protected by copyright" is false. Not all tools, published maps, or derived works based on copyrighted works can be presumed to be "free".
- Please provide some facts, rather than more exultations of freeness. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, the lack of sources is not to be equalized with a significant doubt (concerning copyright, not reliability). There is no doubt at all that the uploader has drawn the map, whatever his sources were (since they are all free). This is the only important thing you have to know to be sure that he is the copyright owner. Furthermore, the source is not lacking here, but declared by the uploader.--Jordi (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Of course you are right that not all derived works based on copyrighted works can be presumed to be "free", but in this case yes they can, because in this case the data shown in this particular map (number of speakers and geographical ranges of use of languages) are free from copyright by nature and cannot be protected. Therefore it is irrelevant (for copyright purposes) where the author of the map got his data from, he was free to compile it from any source at his reach.--Jordi (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have not supplied any evidence that the areas drawn on the map are not derivative works. They are not a set of data, nor were they created using just a set of data.
- Using hundreds of words, you have not supplied any verifiable evidence that can be used to determine copyright status. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is also important that you understand that your claim that the ranges are so detailed that they "appear to have been copied or traced from a published source"
I think you both made your individual point of view now clear enough. I think you should now just wait for the decision of (another) admin. Thx. --JuTa 11:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- +1. It is all said.--Jordi (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Info There are two official sources available which help to understand how the data of these maps (referring to all three types of the series) has been compiled.
- Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI): Catálogo de lenguas indígenas mexicanas: cartografía contemporánea de sus asentamientos históricos. México, D.F. 2005.
- Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI): Catálogo de las Lenguas Indígenas Nacionales: Variantes Lingüísticas de México con sus Autodenominaciones y Referencias Geoestadísticas. México, D.F. 2008 (Diario Oficial de la Federación, January 14, 2008, section I, pp. 30-78, and section II, pp. 1-112).
- The first source is described as Conjunto de 150 mapas de toda la República Mexicana, los cuales presentan, de manera sencilla, la ubicación y densidad de las poblaciones hablantes de lenguas indígenas en el territorio nacional. Constituye el primer paso importante para la catalogación de nuestras lenguas nacionales.[3]
- The second source continued this work and has all the geostatistical data in the form of extremely detailed lists with the names of the languages and the villages where they are spoken, see here. However, this source does not give the numbers of speakers (to be derived from the publications of Census Authority Conapo).
- The second source (published in 2008) was not available yet when @Yavidaxiu has drawn the maps and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons in 2006. But the atlas published in 2005 was already there. One of the 150 map sheets is online, it refers to Chinantecan languages. Looking at this sheet you can see how it works: The geostatistical data is represented by symbols distributed over a limited area. The text also mentions the numbers of speakers acording to the census of the year 2000 in Mexico as a whole (133,374) and in the area shown in the map (84,395). If you compare this data with the corresponding yellow range marked in our file you can see that it refers to the same geographical area shown in the atlas, located in
eastern[should be "northern"] Oaxaca near the border with Veracruz. The number (more than 100,000 speakers) also fits into the range this map is about.
- There is no doubt that the data is free (governmental publication), and that an experienced Mexican mapmaker like @Yavidaxiu (VG-4 level expert, author of similar own drawn maps, author of the basic file for the most widely used location map of Mexico in Wikimedia) is able to draw these ranges acording to the data given by his source. It is also not relevant for the copyright if he took it directly from the 2005 INALI atlas or if he used some kind of intermediate source for it, let's say another map which showed the delimited areas already drawn in a similar way or with dots indicating the density like in this file. As I pointed out before, for the copyright the only thing important is that he has drawn the map by himself an not photocopied or pasted it from elsewhere.--Jordi (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is magical thinking. Exactly what was the source of the underpinning map?
- Rather than throwing a shelf full of haphazard possible sources of something or other, please provide a link or a precise source that can be verified for this image. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nope.
- The underpinning map is of no further interest here in this talk about this specific file, I showed you the map above ("Another blank map, even more similar to the one used by the controverted file") and you used my information for trying to delete it as well (see our talk about the map "made by Jacob Rus"). It's just a blank map of Mexico listed since 2005 in our Category "Maps of Mexico" and can be used by anyone for any purpose, nothing wrong with it.
- Here we are talking about the areas where certain Mexican indigenous languages were spoken in 2000 acording to the Conapo Census of Mexico of the same year and the geostatistical data published by the competent Mexican government agencies (INALI/INEGI/CDI). I explained you how @Yavidaxiu got the data in order to draw the present map, because you were suggesting that he must have "copied or traced [it] from a published source" which you thought would have been a copyvio.
- I have proven with my newly added information that this is not the case. The data was publicly available in 2006 and @Yavidaxiu was free to use it without any permission in order to draw the map. There is also no doubt that he was technically able to do it (VG-4 mapping expert) and that he uploaded similar drawings made by himself in other files (for example File:Taínos.svg). So there is no significant doubt about the authorship of the present map, and therefore there is no doubt about the copyright status.
- Yesterday you said that the areas drawn on the map are not a set of data, nor were they created using just a set of data. With my newly added information I give you evidence that they are. That's all, the rest we have already talked about, I don't think we should repeat the same arguments eternally.--Jordi (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- P.S.: I have now also added the info about the underpinning blank map of Mexico to the file description table.--Jordi (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly what was the source of the underpinning map? You have managed to spend several hundred words avoiding the question. --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have to spend so many word because you repeat ever and ever again the same questions already answered more than once. Only some moments ago I wrote: I showed you the map above ("Another blank map, even more similar to the one used by the controverted file"). There is nothing more to say, the source of this underpinning map is given on the corresponding file description page ("Made by Jacob Rus") and discussed elsewhere, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mexico states blank.png.--Jordi (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- So if that file gets deleted, this one has to be deleted then. It was confusing because you have given several different answers now to the same question, and used several different arguments, most of which had no basis in copyright law.
- With regard to the overlay, what precisely is the source of the maps of the "villages" or regions. These cannot be deduced from simple population data, and must have come from regional maps. --Fæ (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Don't try to confuse. The underpinning map is of no further interest here in this talk, it has nothing to do with the copyright of @Yavidaxiu's drawing, he used it rightfully when it was listed as a free blank map of Mexico in the Category of the same name of Wikimedia Commons, there is nothing strange about this. I did not mention it at all in the newly added arguments which were only focussed in the maps drawn by @Yavidaxiu about indigenous language distribution, not in the underpinning map he used for them because that is of common use on Wikimedia Commons. It is extremely widely used and therefore in the scope, and if you really succeed deleting it, all the other files based on that blank map could be in danger, that would be several hundreds or even thousands of widely used files all over the Wikimedia universe (as I have shown in the corresponding deletion talk). This is not our topic of conversation here.--Jordi (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your second question reveals that you do not even read and check out what I write. I explained exactely how it works above, has nothing to do with population data, but the geostatistical data given on the 150 map sheets of Cartografía Contemporánea (2005). You can try how it works if you look at the sources I linked to. Simply compare the yellow area of Chinantecan languages drawn by @Yavidaxiu with the point cloud from the corresponding atlas page.--Jordi (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Could you be less vague please. We need to be able to verify that this map was created from public domain materials. In the absence of Yavidaxiu (talk · contribs) giving an understandable explanation, you are instead making up a process from scratch that you think might have happened. This is not "proof".
- Exactly where are each of the "150 maps sheets" to be found that can be verified?
- Comparing https://www.inali.gob.mx/pdf/carto.pdf to the areas marked as Chinanteco, this is not a good match. There are significant differences, and it looks impossible to overlay the zones on the uploaded map to create a match. This appears to firmly debunk your theory that this could have been the source that this work was derived from. --Fæ (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- All untrue. The data of the atlas matches exactely the area shown in the file. Even the small details like the isolated language island of El Porvenir in the south or the community of speakers relocated to Veracruz as a consequence of the building of the Cerro de Oro Dam (as mentioned in the atlas) are reflected. There is no more "proof" necessary than to prove that the data was publicly available and anyone could draw this map at the time user @Yavidaxiu did it. I gave you the link to the source and I put it on the file description page, that is all what is necessary to provide a verifiable source. I already told you that it is not relevant for the copyright if @Yavidaxiu took the data directly from the atlas or if he used some kind of intermediate source for it. No more talk necessary.--Jordi (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- No "verifiable source" has been provided. What has been linked is one map of one region, which you now, after several other prior claims, claim shows the uploader used a set of 150 maps to create the map overlay we see.
- However the map we can see was not be traced or derived from those other maps, presuming the other 149 (which you have not provided, so we have not seen) are similar.
- In particular the dots on the map overlap, which is not shown on the map we see. There is no reason to think that it was these maps that the uploader used to create their zones. It is equally as likely that they traced a map of counties or large pueblos which has not been declared, which lined up with the centres for language areas.
- Exultation is not copyright proof, and claims by yourself is not the same as the uploader making a clear statement of which sources they derived this map from.
- FYI, these maps along with other publications by Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas are "ALGUNOS DERECHOS RESERVADOS". Index on WorldCat OCLC 70928091. So if parts of the map uploaded to Commons was traced from the INDLI maps (like El Porvenir), then it's a copyvio per COM:DW anyway. --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- What you
claim[should be "say"] is irrelevant. The dot cloud was there and matches virtually exactely with the map created by the uploader. He is free to draw it as he wants to, we are not judging the quality of his map but only the copyright situation, as I have told you so many times. As long as he draws it by himself he can also trace county borders or larger pueblos as he likes, this is all free data he can use to reelaborate a design. He told us above that he also used the map by Jorge Suárez for the elaboration of his map. I already told you that he may also have used some kind of intermediate source for it. That would not change anything about copyright and freedom of the geostatistical data in which the map is grounded. The 150 map sheets are published and can be consulted at any time by anyone in any place where the book is stored, it is not necessary that they are available online on the Internet to be a verifiable source. The uploader made several similar maps reelaborated from existing publications in journals or books.--Jordi (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)- BTW, there is nothing "overlapping" in INALI map No. 7, what do you mean? The different colors are not different languages, it is all Chinantecan. I think your misinterpretation may be a result of poor understanding of the map legend (no problem, I will explain it to you, if you wish).--Jordi (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- "What you claim is irrelevant", perfectly true. I have been asserting facts, not making claims. I have made zero claims about how the uploader created this map. I have asked for the source so that copyright can be verified.
- Assertion of fact: the maps that you are claiming were used to create the regions shown in this upload are not free. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- The geostatistical data is free and was publicly available at the time @Yavidaxiu made his map, that is all we are interested in. Of course the maps published by INALI are not free, neither Jorge A. Suárez' book is free, but that is completely irrelevant for our question.--Jordi (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- What you
- All untrue. The data of the atlas matches exactely the area shown in the file. Even the small details like the isolated language island of El Porvenir in the south or the community of speakers relocated to Veracruz as a consequence of the building of the Cerro de Oro Dam (as mentioned in the atlas) are reflected. There is no more "proof" necessary than to prove that the data was publicly available and anyone could draw this map at the time user @Yavidaxiu did it. I gave you the link to the source and I put it on the file description page, that is all what is necessary to provide a verifiable source. I already told you that it is not relevant for the copyright if @Yavidaxiu took the data directly from the atlas or if he used some kind of intermediate source for it. No more talk necessary.--Jordi (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly what was the source of the underpinning map? You have managed to spend several hundred words avoiding the question. --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nope.
Folks: I'm nealry sure the deciding admin will not read your whole discussion here (I stopped it some days ago). There is no need to turn it arround and arround and arround... --JuTa 12:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: kept per Jordi - the underlying map is free to use, so, no copyright issue here. Errors and other issues aren't relevant here for Commons as the file is used. --rubin16 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
http://iaf.co.il/Sip_Storage/FILES/0/66060.jpg Tomtom (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Geagea (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by S. R. Shutt (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely claim of own work on these black and white images of a single actress at various ages of her life. Probable COM:COPYVIOs. One has an obvious photographer's stamp, the others have no information.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Although I have been a reader of Wikipedia for many years, this entry was my first attempt at actually contributing, so I realize that I made a big mistake in how I posted these files.
These are scans of photographs that came from Toronto actress Cosette Lee's personal collection. They are now held with the rest of her surviving papers and other items at the Toronto Public Library. Almost everything in the article came from original research I did on her collection in April of 2015. I have cited all this in the footnotes.
I spoke to one of the curators and arranged for the scans of these photographs. They have never before been posted on any website. I spoke to him about using them on a possible Strange Paradise tribute site, and that may be the most appropriate location for the material. I was told that posting these on a website would constitute fair use, according to the understanding of the Library in acting as a custodian for this collection.
I didn't read documentation (or even try to find it) on "how to post images on Wikipedia" so I clicked on the box indicating that it was "my own work" given that I arranged for the scans and resized them for the article.
My apologies for erroneously describing these as "my own work," but I honestly did not see any other menu or option to present a more specific way of describing the provenance of these scans.
A fourth image, a screen capture from Cosette Lee's appearance on the 1965 UK/Canadian television series Seaway, was the work of my friend and collaborator Curt Ladnier. I thanked him for the use of the image in my caption. I have an email from him where he told me he gave me permission to use anything he produced related to Cosette Lee and Strange Paradise. He and I have worked together on research projects related to this for years.
Curt also provided the scan of the cover of the 1970 novel RAXL, VOODOO PRIESTESS, which was already deleted, I think by another administrator. The origin of the scan was an eBay listing but Curt gussied it up with some software.
Please clarify if I should delete ALL images from the entry... or the entire entry itself, if it fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements.
Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. R. Shutt (talk • contribs)
Comment There seems to be confusion about Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons in the foregoing as well as the concepts of copyright. I'm going to leave a message on the user's talk page offering help with reading COM:L and so on. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ellin, Thank you very much for your kindness in clarifying several things, first of all that my gaffe has to do with Wikimedia Commons, not the en.wikipedia site. I just thought of it as "all the same thing" and as I start the process of studying the documentation, I'm starting to comprehend some of the distinctions.
I don't know if you will see this but I am unable right now to figure out another way to contact you. I guess I can try the email utility on your "talk" page if this doesn't seem to get to you. I apologize for the delay in responding--I am dealing with a very busy period both domestically and at work right now.
I did an edit to the actual entry for which the images were originally uploaded as illustrations. And on Friday evening I started looking at the kind of information people supplied where images were uploaded to support specific entries.
I am very doubtful of finding out the information about who took the head shot photographs. It may be outside the realm of what I need to consider as to whether it is permissible to keep the scans on the site (I need first of all to clarify in the documentation that the scans aren't actually my work, though the Library made the scans at my request and I did pay for them). But I wonder if these could be allowed since the actress undoubtedly ordered them at various points of her career specifically to be used as "head shots" and to be included in publicity items and profiles. My entry is a profile of her and if she were alive today, this is the kind of material she would have wanted to be included. I don't think that's relevant, but it's something that crossed my mind.
Anyhow the diagram and tutorial you sent seems really helpful and I will get on the stick with that. Thank you again for explaining the situation to me.
Best wishes, Steve Shutt
Deleted: No evidence that these are PD. The best way to contact anyone on any WMF project is to leave a message on their talk page, in Ellin's case, that would be User talk:Ellin Beltz. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohammed.hikmat (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on these (3) documents with photos, (1) document without photo, and (2) photo collages of sports players.
- File:الصورة الاولى بطولة الجامعات في مدينة البصرة سنة 1970 سلوان فرنسيس عبد الجبار حكمت راضي توما الصورة الثانية.jpg
- File:فريق الطائرة العراقي عبد الجبار حكمت و محمد رضا ابراهيم مع فريق سيسكا الروسي.jpg
- File:الاتحاد العراقي لكرة الطائرة سنة 1976.jpg
- File:حكم البحرين والسودان.jpg
- File:شهادة حكم كرة الطائرة.jpg
- File:هوية نادي الكهربائ.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no indication of user's own work on any of these files which include images of trophies, group shots of sports players, and so on. There is no metadata, it looks like a fan gallery. Variable sizes, colors, ages, halftoning, etc. all lend support to the idea that this uploader has culled the internet in search of these images rather than created them personally.
- File:Tigre1963.jpg
- File:Strongest1958.jpg
- File:TheStrongest1946.png
- File:TheStrongest1914.jpg
- File:CopaVega.png
- File:CopaTriCampeón.jpg
- File:Renato Sainz.jpg
- File:Club Tenis The Strongest.png
- File:Canchas Complejo Deportivo Strongest.jpg
- File:LogoComplejoStrongest.jpg
- File:2004Strongest.jpg
- File:Strongest1976.jpg
- File:Socios The Strongest 1908.jpg
- File:Edificio Colón.jpg
- File:LuisLiendoyOvidioMessa1975.jpg
- File:SeleccionBoliviana1950.png
- File:Gimnasio de Achumani.jpg
- File:Estatua Don Rafo.jpg
- File:BuqueQuinteros.png
- File:Panorámica Siles.jpg
- File:Achumani 1977.jpg
- File:Kalatakaya.jpg
- File:BalderramaBotafogoBautista.jpg
- File:TheStrongestSudamericana.jpg
- File:TheStrongestLibertadores1975.jpg
- File:TheStrongest1969.jpg
- File:Rafael Pabon.jpg
- File:TSOruro.jpg
- File:Baloncesto The Strongest.png
- File:López Villamil.jpg
- File:Complejo de Achumani futbol.jpg
- File:Voleybol Strongest.jpg
- File:2015CSS.jpg
- File:Soria 2016.jpg
- File:TSvsAtleti.png
- File:The Strongest 2008 .jpg
- File:90años.png
- File:The Strongest Universitario 1930.png
- File:The Strongest 1914.jpg
- File:Jugadores de The Strongest 2016.jpg
- File:Garra Central The Strongest.jpg
- File:Ultra sur.jpg
- File:GAV Sport.jpg
- File:Nems.png
- File:Sello The Strongest Centenario.jpg
- File:Sello The Strongest 1983.png
- File:Escudo del Nimbles Sport Association.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sitesofversailles (talk · contribs)
[edit]Despite source (own) and license CC-by-SA, it is obvious none of these images is own work of the uploader. They're instead older images which might be old enough to be retained, if they had proper source and license. Notice also the small sizes which are especially indicative of internet culling.
- File:Château d'Anet.png
- File:Château de Rosny-sur-Seine Garden View.png
- File:Château de Fontainebleau Plan.png
- File:Palais des Tuileries Plan.png
- File:Château de Chantilly Site and Garden Plan.png
- File:Château de Bagnolet Plan.png
- File:De Champs Site and garden plan.png
- File:Chateau Crecy Site Plan.jpg
- File:CHÂTEAU DE MALMAISON.png
- File:Chateau de Maisons Garden.jpg
- File:Chateau de Courance Garden.jpg
- File:Chamarande Garden Plan.jpg
- File:Bellevue Garden.png
- File:Saint-Germain-en-Laye.png
- File:Saint Ouen garden.png
- File:Château du Raincy Plan.png
- File:Château de Mesnilvoisin plan.jpg
- File:Château de Pomponne Garden.jpg
- File:Château de Villeroy Plan.jpg
- File:Château de la Motte-Tilly- Site Plan.png
- File:Château de Choisy-le-Roi Site Plan.png
- File:Chateau de Champs sur Marne Plan.png
- File:Château de la Motte-Tilly- Plan.jpg
- File:Château de Bourneville Plan.png
- File:Château de la Muette Plan.png
- File:Château de Choisy Plan.png
- File:Maison au Grand Charonne Pan.png
- File:Maison de campagne a batir site plan.png
- File:Maison de campagne a batir plan.png
- File:Maison de M. Crozat le jeune à Montmorency Plan.png
- File:D'Issy Plan.png
- File:Maison de M. Lullin a Jeanthon Plan.png
- File:Château de Savigny-sur-Orge Site Plan.png
- File:Chateau Dampierre Garden View.png
- File:Chateau-de-breteuil-.png
- File:Château de Bullion.jpg
- File:Château de Monceaux-en-Brie.jpg
- File:Chateau Grosbois.jpg
- File:De Berny.jpg
- File:Château de Wideville.jpg
- File:Petit-bourg-gravure-de-mari.jpg
- File:Fleury-Mergois.jpg
- File:Maison de M. Lullin a Jeanthon copy.jpg
- File:Maison de M. Crozat le jeune a Montmorency copy.jpg
- File:Maison de campagne a batir copy.jpg
- File:Chateau de Stain copy.jpg
- File:Maison au Grand Charonne copy.jpg
- File:Chateau de Sable en Anjou, au Marquis de Torcy copy.jpg
- File:Chateau de Perigny en Bourgogne copy.jpg
- File:Chateau de la Muette copy.jpg
- File:Chateau de Bourneville pres de la Ferte-Milon, au president Durey copy.jpg
- File:Chateau de Champ au due de Lavalliere copy.jpg
- File:Chateau de Choisy copy.jpg
- File:Chateau d'Issy copy.jpg
- File:Chateau de Boufflers copy.jpg
- File:ChateauDeSceauxPlan copy.jpg
- File:Teme3a0seg1241 original.jpg
- File:Versailles garden outline.jpg
- File:Château de Pontchartrain.jpg
- File:Planplace 590px.jpg
- File:Plan-sucy-en-brie-chateau.jpg
- File:Vaux le vicomte.jpg
- File:Btv1b84457820.jpg
- File:Btv1b53024950p.jpg
- File:Château d'Evry-petit-Bourg.jpg
- File:Chateau de Bercy.jpg
- File:Versailles plan1322711046354.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment many of these image look old enough to actually be in the public domain but, firstly they are claimed as own work with is blatantly false, and secondly they do not have the appropriate original sources. Some may already be available on the commons and in even higher resolution making them redundant, such as the last image File:Versailles plan1322711046354.jpg for which we already have File:Plan de Versailles - Gesamtplan von Delagrife 1746.jpg. The uploader needs to fix them otherwise they should be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jose Penalver (talk · contribs)
[edit]Some unknown persons, see description, commons are not facebook
- File:Con Luisito Carrion, Tito Cruz y Paquito Perez (Zodiac).JPG
- File:Mi amigo Rafael Viera, Viera Discos.JPG
- File:Telemundo Acceso Total.JPG
- File:Con el Gran amigo y Productor Sanabria.JPG
- File:Noticentro 4 Wapa TV.JPG
- File:Radio Leo Ponce, Puerto Rico.JPG
- File:Collage Grandes Artistas.jpg
- File:Con el Maestro Isidro Infante.JPG
- File:Con mi amigo Tito Rojas.JPG
- File:Noticentro con Trio.JPG
- File:Con Jun Jun Echevarria- Radio WVOZ.JPG
- File:Ellas y Tus Noches, Canal 13.JPG
- File:Wapa TV.JPG
- File:Con el Maestro Pijuan.JPG
- File:Cantando Entre Noso...2016.jpg
- File:Tele Oro.JPG
- File:Orquesta en Canal 4.JPG
- File:Viva Puerto Rico.jpg
Motopark (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Policy allows one or two personal images for user pages of active contributors, but "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Mr. Claude Fromageot, Director of Sustainable Development for the Yves Rocher Group and Director of the Yves Rocher Foundation, Yves Rocher, Paris (8026064307).jpg
[edit]la marque ne veut plus que cette photo apparaisse sur sa page Dugilowcost (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The file is in use, and the company can not dictate what files will or will not be used. Yves Rocher is free to provide freely licensed media, however. Kharkivinite (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: We very rarely take an image down at the request of outsiders. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mordihimal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Useless without descriptions and probably out of scope
- File:Workinrivan.JPG
- File:Rivanvillage.jpg
- File:Bauernhausrivan.JPG
- File:Rivan.jpg
- File:SAM 0314.JPG
2003:45:5C16:F601:1DE3:D973:C9E7:65A3 15:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by John Wooler (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal files
- File:Samuel M. 6.jpg
- File:Samuel M. 5.jpg
- File:Samuel M. 3.jpg
- File:Samuel M. 1.jpg
- File:Samuel Marques da Silva 3.jpg own work?
- File:Sameul Marques da Silva 2.jpg own work?
2003:45:5C16:F601:1DE3:D973:C9E7:65A3 15:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
personal photo of a non notable person, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dassanayake (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo, out of scope. Used for promotional purposes, as per the file descriptions
Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC) I disagree this is not for promotional purpose. Out of scope i don't think, is not forbidden to use personal photo. could you please describe which regulation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.85.168 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Deleted: Clearly violates COM:ADVERT. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo of a non notable person, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Domdomegg (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Used only once on a Wikipedia page for speedy deletion, selfie of non-notable person Domdomegg (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hsnsafatzl (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hichem smb (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlvaMigueCarranMonta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal files, out of scope.
- File:Caucásico.jpg
- File:Maestría y Educación Superior.jpg
- File:Yoga y Gimnasia.jpg
- File:Medidina Especializada.jpg
- File:Especialista y Profesional.jpg
- File:Estética, Medicina Especializada.jpg
- File:Budismo, Fitness, Álvaro Miguel Carranza Montalvo.jpg
- File:Yoga, White Skin, Médico Especialista, Bolivia.jpg
- File:Álvaro Miguel Carranza Montalvo, Maestría, Máster.jpg
- File:Piel Blanca, White Skin, Médico Especialista.jpg
- File:Álvaro Miguel Carranza Montalvo.jpg
— Racconish ☎ 13:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlvaMigueCarranMonta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal file out of scope
— Racconish ☎ 13:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The claim that it does not meet the threshold of originality has been successfully challenged previously, which resulted in File:Logo violetta.png being deleted. This could be moved to enwiki as the policy there says non-free SVG images are OK as long as they are not rendered in an unnecessarily high resolution. Unfortunately there is no other option for the Spanish Wikipedia as local uploads are disabled there, but that doesn't mean we can upload copyrighted logos. I think it's pretty original. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep This image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.different from the original, a little, free version.--EEIM (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Copy-pasting that boilerplate won't make your argument valid. It's not "simple" text, there is certainly artistic value to the logo. Look, I'm a fan of Violetta too, but that doesn't mean we can disregard copyright laws. As I said it's likely OK as fair use on enwiki, that's probably the best we can get. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Everything there, including the flourishes, is part of the font. Fonts have no copyright in the USA, and Disney is clearly a US company, so this has no copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's nice then, I'm not that familiar with copyright law. I'm glad it can be kept. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hachemjohnny (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos and music. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Johnny Hachem The Fourth Watch.webm
- File:Johnny Hachem The Fourth Watch.ogg
- File:JohnnyHachemPortrait.jpg
- File:Johnny hachem playing music.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tommy animator (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Looks like broken files.
- File:Start of forest.ogg
- File:Leaky dam with vegetation.ogg
- File:Swellingstream3.ogg
- File:Swellingstream1.ogg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tommy animator (talk · contribs)
[edit]6. better animation posted today 9. image not creative commons, open steet map image uploaded 8. better image uploaded
Tommy animator (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
No confidence that any of these images is the own work of the uploader, two album covers, two headshots.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Ellin, For the files :
The covers of the albums are scanned that I did of the cover of the albums of the artist Emeric Imre. I am working for him as PR representing his interests and I am fully entitled to use his pictures and albums covers on wikipedia articles.
For the file:
I am helping the widow of the deceased actor Matei Alexandru to create her husband's page and she supplied me with this image in order to use it on Wikipedia.
Regards, (Liancu (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC))
Deleted: "For use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient -- WP:EN and Commons both require that images be free for use by anyone anywhere for any pupose. Unless the image is the actual work of the uploader, or PD, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, not the subject, must send a free license to OTRS. It is highly unlikely that Matei Alexandru's widow owns the copyright toimages of him -- that is almost always held by the photographer or his heirs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This image is watermarked as property of one Bodi Edgar Gabriel, who contributes images to Photo.net and Instagram. Since there is no OTRS permission and the copyright owner took the time to watermark it, I don't think the image is free.
—Andrei S. Talk 15:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lizbetdebelhe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional or self-promotional uploads of logo of 'self'.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DatafullUSA (talk · contribs)
[edit]Mixture of selfies and stuff taken from other places on the web. Looks like unwanted self-promotion to me.
- File:Carlos Prizzi 11.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 14.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 13.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 12.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 10.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 09.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 08.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 07.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 06.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 04.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 05.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 01.jpg
- File:Carlos Prizzi 03.jpg
El Grafo (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the uploader doesn't know the original author of the picture doesn't mean that it do not have copyrights. Also, since the file was taken in Washington DC, the Chilean Intelectual Property Law doesn't apply in this case. Sfs90 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- La fotografía la saque de =Revista Mujer del 14 de marzo de 2016 y su autor es desconocido, amparado bajo la ley Ley No. 17336 de propiedad intelectual de Chile, capítulo III. Un saludo --Historiadormundo (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- US PD for anonymous or unknown author in the US: 95 years after day of publication --Raimundo75 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- According to that, it's still a copyvio: The expiration date for this file copyrights would be only in 2035. --Sfs90 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- la fotografía está sacada en territorio que corresponde a la ONU . Por lo anterior está protegida por la ley 17336 capítulos III .
- Su autor es desconocido, y se debe aplicar esto de acuerdo al territorio donde fue sacada la fotografía. Un saludo--Historiadormundo (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- la fotografía está sacada en territorio que corresponde a la ONU . Por lo anterior está protegida por la ley 17336 capítulos III .
- How could it be a territory of the UN, if the image is from 1940 and the UN wasn't created until 1945? --Sfs90 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- la fotografía es de la ONU, como dice el artículo, en recinto de la ONU, cerca de 1945, por lo anterior agradecería que retirara la plantilla de borrado. Con esto queda demostrado que se acoge a la ley 17336, capítulo III, un saludo --Historiadormundo (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- No. It's says "circa 1940", and in any year around 1940 (1938 to 1942) the UN wasn't created. --Sfs90 (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- En el siguiente articulo, se puede apreciar que Julia Astaburuaga viajo a la ONU en 1946 a los 27 años de edad Vida de Julita Astaburuaga por lo anterior esta fotografía tiene 70 años de antigüedad. Su autor es desconocido, amparado bajo la ley Ley No. 17336 de propiedad intelectual de Chile, capítulo III. La fotografía de acuerdo a lo que dicen los artículos mencionados fue tomada en territorio que corresponde a la ONU Muchas gracias por leer esto, un saludos --Historiadormundo (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The UN does not have any special copyright law. It is well established that objects on the property of the UN in New York are subject to USA copyright law. I see no reason why this should be PD. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me, that main object of the photo is screenshot with unknown copyright status. The photographer has given free license, as confirmed by FlickreviewR robot, but what about screenshot author? Taivo (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Considero que el objetivo principal del fotógrafo era cubrir el evento, mas no necesariamente los productos mostrados en el mismo. Si bien, por la misma naturaleza del evento, se presentaron fotografías como la aquí cuestionada y otras como ésta o ésta, vemos otras fotografías del mismo evento en la que el autor se centra en la conferencia de prensa, tales como ésta, ésta, ésta, ésta o ésta. Por lo argumentado, considero improcedente el borrado de esta fotografía.--Lemilio775 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: There are three copyrights here. First, the image itself. Second, the image on the main screen. Third, the image on the device being held by the man on the main screen. We may have a license for the first, but not the other two. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not map of Azerbaijan khanates. In original version this is name khanate Persia and Transcaucasus. 109.252.101.166 05:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. In the most reliable academic sources the khanates are known as "Azerbaijani khanates". In any case, this is not reason for deletion the file. --Interfase (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Keep File with incorrect name can simply be renamed via File rename procedure. But I think the file is named correctly.--Ray Garraty (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![99 File:סתיו יהושע גע"ג 5.jpg](#File:סתיו_יהושע_גע"ג_5.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![165 File:Dendroloģiskais parks "Lazdukalni".JPG](#File:Dendroloģiskais_parks_"Lazdukalni".JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![298 File:Still from the video installation "Sensation Seekers" Vénera Kastrati 2009.jpg](#File:Still_from_the_video_installation_"Sensation_Seekers"_Vénera_Kastrati_2009.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Oh_Se-hun_at_the_Music_Bank_in_Hanoi_01.jpg&diff=192825103&oldid=175953874){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Kept: per consensus. czar 18:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Missing license as of 12 April 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Missing license as of 12 April 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related ptwiki entry speedy deleted. User blocked at ptwiki.
Gunnex (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Original file is out of scope (usused logo). Second file version is vandalism/test upload. Josve05a (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out-of-scope: Photoshop job combining face with the rest. Of no use for Wikipedia. Takeaway (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo, by someone who doesn't edit WP Gbawden (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Too small and blurry to be educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photos and artwork: out of scope. Additional copyright concerns (small filesizes, missing exif).
Storkk (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
it is offensive Stick01 (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Peronal photo. Out of scope. -- Geagea (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
![14:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/04/13#c-Geagea-2016-04-13T14:46:00.000Z-File:סתיו_יהושע_גע"ג_5.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete out of scope: no educational use czar 18:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
![09:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/04/13#c-George_Chernilevsky-2016-04-21T09:16:00.000Z-File:סתיו_יהושע_גע"ג_5.jpg){kind=link}
unused, some logo, doesn't seem to be in scope Pibwl (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
poor photo of a capsule, no real educational use Pibwl (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
doubtful authorship, sole upload, inscription Pibwl (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal type photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Interpol has not been deemed a public domain organization, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tmp 4367-160101 112117 chat bg1517722611.jpg.
- File:SILVER+DIRECTOR UNITED+STATES+NATIONAL+CENTERAL+BUREAU+INTERPOL UNINTED+STATES+DEPARTMENT+OF+JUSTICE .jpg
- File:Interpol badge.jpg
Kissa21782 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Geni (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Stated to be "family logos", unused - out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Tmp 4367-b2d1205e75917a98d4f6defc5b3ea4ce(1)-1845808685.jpg
- File:Tmp 4367-DAVILA 2130430755.jpeg
-1845808685.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kissa21782 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
definitely out of scope Pibwl (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Pibwl (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
out of scope personal photo Pibwl (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional/Spam. Also out of scope as text-only. Ahecht (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional material from Shiv Dental. Ahecht (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional material from Shiv Dental Ahecht (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional content/spam Ahecht (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
out of project scope : was used to vandalise articles on wp.fr Do not follow (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
personal files, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AlvaMigueCarranMonta. — Racconish ☎ 19:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
personal files, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AlvaMigueCarranMonta. — Racconish ☎ 19:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
self promotion, avertising, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AlvaMigueCarranMonta. — Racconish ☎ 19:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
self promotion, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
self promotion, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
self promotion, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is unintentionally hilarious (sorry, but it's true). Sadly, Delete Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Inferior unused duplicate of File:L-13 Blanik.jpg. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Possible copyrighted image. I doubt the copyright holder granted the permission for its uploader. Copyright holder needs to send permission to COM:OTRS. Delete per COM:PRP. We take copyright very seriously even if the copyright holder does not. Wikicology (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The image has been uploaded for vandalism in Russian Wikipedia. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- out of scope, no-notable person, ugly picture Chaoborus (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, personal photo of non-notable individual; also possibly violating personality rights by publishing it. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused file, unknown people. Chaoborus (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
included web-address in watermark Motopark (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. --Stang 07:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dennis Adonis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio - Author SAJJAD GOHAR. --Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope personal file that is unused. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio-by-screenshot, including not only the thumbnails which are presumably copyright in their own right, but two corporate logos fancy enough to be over the threshold of originality. (The uploader hasn't even bothered to crop off the clear copyright notice at the bottom of the page.) — iridescent 18:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Also out of scope, since its article's now been deleted and protected from creation at at least w:ZippCast and w:Zippcast. —Cryptic (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Only two contributions by user, not in use, probable advertisement.
Sebari (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related ptwiki entry speedy deleted. Gunnex (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the background PD? Out of scope? Josve05a (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Buggy SVG; orphaned. Leyo 23:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Have File:Hydrazine nitrate.png from same uploader. Still close to MOS, and definitely better than anything that is buggy. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out-of-scope. Used by uploader for hoax in Wikipedia article Avocado. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avocado&diff=prev&oldid=715142497 Takeaway (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Fred Loudon's motorcycle shop with Francis-Barnett motorcycles, corner Elizabeth and Goulburn Street, Sydney, 1 March 1938, by Sam Hood (4066631233).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low resolution version of File:SLNSW 11535 Fred Loudons motorcycle shop with FrancisBarnett motorcycles corner Elizabeth and Goulburn Street.jpg Cjp24 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: scaled-down dupe, not in use. --Yasu (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a non-free poster, owned by Marvel Studios and Walt Disney Pictures. Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, obvious copyvio. --Yasu (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Pacifico Yokohama
[edit]No-FoP Japan, Not free enough to share on commons
- since the original title = the copyrighted charactor, it is hardly judged as "De minimis" either.
Tokorokoko (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Yasu (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used (Wikipedia Zero upload). Gunnex (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Missing license as of 13 April 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.
Files uploaded by Udayi Gunawardana (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work; these were appended to an article which has been declined; likely self-promotion or promotional uploads for that article, not educational, out of COM:SCOPE even assuming the uploader has copyright.
- File:GMOA President.jpg
- File:Dr Anuruddha Padeniya.jpg
- File:Ex-co-1024x254.jpg
- File:GMOA.jpg
- File:Dr. Anuruddha Padeniya.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Clearly not a 'training' image, as the aircraft has the markings of five kills, making the pilot an ace. This image appears to be a screen capture of a computer simulation or game. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Missing license as of 14 April 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.
Upload from long-term abuser (see it.wiki). Sanremofilo (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Copyright violation: cd cover
Upload from long-term abuser (see it.wiki). Sanremofilo (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Copyright violation: screenshot from copyrighted video
Upload from long-term abuser (see it.wiki). Sanremofilo (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Copyright violation: screenshot
Reflections from window distort photo, making photo not very useful and distorted. (Many superior photos of SIA 777-300ER's on Wikimedia) PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Unusable poor quality image with loads of far better quality replacement images available. --DAJF (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep IN-USE ON UPLOADERS USER PAGE. BMoped (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep In use. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:09, 19 April
- 非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete From COM:SCOPE, emphasis added: "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose ... solely because it is in use on a user page... but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed". I see no educational value, and I don't think we should keep it just because it's on an large userpage gallery. The userpage exception is meant to allow some leeway for images of users, this doesn't fit the bill IMO. Storkk (talk)
- Delete agreed: user galleries are beyond the bounds of COM:INUSE and the image has no other educational use czar 17:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
ファイル名を間違えてしまった 58.88.61.198 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Files can be renamed in accordance with COM:RENAME. Riley Huntley (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
{{Copyvio}} Ulyanovsk (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. Riley Huntley (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
{{Copyvio}} Ulyanovsk (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. Riley Huntley (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Component images unlikely to be the work of the uploader, and aren't identified per COM:Collages Ahecht (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. Riley Huntley (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This file is not a video but a JPG which contains only text. No reason to retain it, were these five or six words ever needed by the project, they could be reproduced by typing. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: out of COM:SCOPE. --Storkk (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ahecht as Copyvio (copyvio) but I am converting this to a DR since I believe the logo is PD-Text Sreejith K (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- File:KLAS-TV 8 logo.png
- File:KPIX-TV Logo.svg
- File:FCMaruyasuOkazaki.png
- File:Atomium-eismd.jpg
- File:AmericanEagleLogo.png
- File:AmericanConnection.png
- File:Alpha Beta Logo.PNG
- File:Aeroport Nice Cote d'Azur logo.svg
- File:GoodSAM (app) logo.png
- File:Diu-logo.png
File:Crossref Logo Stacked RGB SMALL.png
_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- I am removing the above file from the list of nominations because the original entry had an incorrect licensing statement. The logo is not in the PD but is actually released under CC BY SA 4.0 (see official announcement on the Crossref blog post). I am going ahead and fixing this on the file page itself and removing the deletion template accordingly.--DarTar (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- File:Caesars Entertainment logo.svg
- File:Kenv 2010.png
- File:KCBS-TV Logo.png
- File:KCRA.svg
- File:GoldCore Dublin.png
- Delete I marked these as copyvio because, in the top example, the CBS "eye" goes beyond text and simple shapes. Similarly with the NBC peacock, American Airlines Eagle, and other complex shapes in the other logos. --Ahecht (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment By that logic, every file in Category:CBS logos should be deleted. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are 17 logos in that category that don't use the CBS "eye" and appear to fall under {{PD-textlogo}}. --Ahecht (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: some and deleted some based on whether PD-textlogo seemed applicable. --Jcb (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
ファイル名を間違えてしまった 58.88.61.198 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: COM:RENAME. Riley Huntley (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not file 양념파닭 (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy delete Not a file. Riley Huntley (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. which is all totally correct. I think we have a new user here with own photos who may not have known how to fill in the template. Converting to DN for time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
![16:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/04/13#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-04-13T16:12:00.000Z-File:Dendroloģiskais_parks_"Lazdukalni".JPG){kind=link}
Deleted by Jcb: Missing license as of 24 April 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.
This file was initially tagged by Stas1995 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: out of scope - unused personal file. Not small, EXIF exists, maybe somebody wants it as stock photo. Taivo (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Non free DVD cover art from American Horror Story. IndianBio (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: No free licence mentioned on the website. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It isn't an own work, it is a copy of the site of the Association Patrimoine du Pays de Pleurtuit en Poudouvre Péeuh (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Does not appear to be own work as claimed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
http://yazreid.en.made-in-china.com/productimage/lMoEvetVANrq-2f1j00gZaEiPYKqpus/China-Hokaido-Single-Stage-Rotary-Vane-Vacuum-Pump-RH0020-.html Copyright © 2016 Focus Technology Co., Ltd. All rights reserved. Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- More likely copyrighted by Hokaido. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: already done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moulionline (talk · contribs)
[edit]personal photo, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Does not appear to be own work as claimed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Image taken from Google streetview. MKFI (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Google streetviews are copyright protected. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://blog.inin.com/how-to-compare-the-private-and-public-cloud/#sthash.ULsjJHNc.dpbs - marked as own work. EricEnfermero (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not even meaning anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be copied from https://www.facebook.com/ourTangail/photos/pb.357309924355922.-2207520000.1460511162./764110227009221/?type=3&theater where it is marked "Click by Milon", unlikely to be uploader's own work as claimed. Worldbruce (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Lower res copy of image https://www.facebook.com/ourTangail/photos/pb.357309924355922.-2207520000.1460511075./866159220137654/?type=3&theater, unlikely to be uploader's work as claimed Worldbruce (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Low res copy of image https://www.facebook.com/ourTangail/photos/a.357363407683907.87397.357309924355922/975380305882211/?type=3&theater, it is marked in cursive script "Fahad's Photography" (the first word is well hidden in the vegetation, but the second plainly crosses the left-hand set of tracks in the mid-foreground), unlikely to be uploader's work as claimed Worldbruce (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Low res copy of image https://www.facebook.com/ourTangail/photos/a.357363407683907.87397.357309924355922/928793790540863/?type=3&theater, unlikely to be uploader's work as claimed Worldbruce (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Low res copy of image https://www.facebook.com/ourTangail/photos/a.357363407683907.87397.357309924355922/904190483001194/?type=3&theater, unlikely to be uploader's work as claimed Worldbruce (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Copy of image https://www.facebook.com/ourTangail/photos/a.357363407683907.87397.357309924355922/862213263865583/?type=3&size=1920%2C1080&fbid=862213263865583, unlikely to be uploader's work as claimed Worldbruce (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Copy of image https://www.facebook.com/ourTangail/photos/a.357363407683907.87397.357309924355922/793039540782956/?type=3&theater, where the photographer is identified as Mahmudul Hasan Tapon, unlikely to be uploader's work as claimed Worldbruce (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Copy of image https://www.facebook.com/ourTangail/photos/a.357363407683907.87397.357309924355922/784932001593710/?type=3&theater, where it is identified in Bengali as the work of ফটোগ্রাফারঃ মাহমুদুল হাসান তপন [Photographer: Tapan Mahmud Hasan], unlikely to be uploader's work as claimed Worldbruce (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Probably a copyright violation; the copyright notice includes a different name from the uploader, who claims own work. — Yerpo Eh? 13:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jean-René Linyekula (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.
- File:Comment maîtriser et réussir à écrire une dissertation?.pdf
- File:Comment écrire une dissertation?.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by أسامه عبدالله هديان (talk · contribs)
[edit]No License, Uploaded from Google
- File:حمود عاطف.jpg
- File:عبدالقادر باجمال.jpg
- File:Mesfer Abdullah Al-Numair.png
- File:عبد الملك سليمان المعلمي.png
- File:م. عوض سعد السقطري.png
- File:البنك اليمني للانشاء والتعمير.jpg
- File:مخطوطات أثرية قديمة ٢.jpg
- File:مخطوطات أثرية.jpg
- File:قلعة مهلهل العسكرية.jpg
- File:مدينة خمر ٣.jpg
- File:مدينة خمر ٢.jpg
- File:مدينة خمر.jpg
- File:فن تشكيلي.jpg
إسلام (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and Copyvio --Alaa :)..! 11:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by أسامه عبدالله هديان (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:احمد علي عبدالله صالح.png
- File:حمير عبدالله الاحمر.jpg
- File:طارق محمد صالح.jpg
- File:الشيخ عبدالله بن حسين الاحمر.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete all. One is from Facebook and others swiped from the net, social media etc. The uploader needs a short rest to understand how to contribute to Commons, IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Likely copyvio - is an edited/cropped screen shot of Meghan Trainor/John Legend graphic found here Winkelvi (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
self promotion Bazj (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Component images unlikely to be the work of the uploader, and aren't identified per COM:Collages Ahecht (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation - found on 2009 blog here, predating upload Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Obvious copyvio of a logo fancy enough to be well over the threshold of originality. — iridescent 19:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Also out of scope, since its article's now been deleted and protected from creation at at least w:ZippCast and w:Zippcast. —Cryptic (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio of a logo fancy enough to be well over the threshold of originality. — iridescent 19:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
this photo shows Entrada Sandstone, not Navajo Sandstone, which the article is all about....!! Boogazilla (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - the description can be edited. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rodrigo.perfonte (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF.
Gunnex (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. If IN scope needs permission via https://www.facebook.com/paulistanawebtv/photos/a.1599103393699236.1073741825.1599072117035697/1599732403636335/?type=3&theater (2015). Gunnex (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work by arwiki user "Salah- 56789" (satellite image): small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Twitter bird is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 22:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as blatant copyvio. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A 1955 movie poster with source, but no indication that the license is correct. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
record cover Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused doodle art by contributor. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this tiny copy of a pastel drawing. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused text only file, could be reproduced by typing if ever needed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is this a screenshot? Note the icon on the top. If it is a screenshot of something, then it might be a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Photo has no source. In the first version it was announced that this photo came from flickr, but it has never been reviewed and GNU licences were never available on flickr. Finally, there is no proof for this creativecommons licence. 80.187.106.52 16:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The CC licence was added normally during the licence migration and is not a problem per se. The GFDL is not said to have been taken from the flickr version, but from a special permission from the photographer, which wouldn't be a problem either, if it were valid. However, it is not validated by OTRS and all we have is from the uploader. And the permision attributed to the author is clearly insufficient. "Yes, you can use my images. Please send me a link to your wikipedia article." is really not enough. Although the uploader's request for permission (assuming it was sent to the author) mentions the GFDL, the wording is ambiguous. Without a direct statement from the author, there is no evidence that this is under the GFDL. Also, the source and the flickr account don't exist anymore, which doesn't help. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. There is a link to a email on the information template where he says he will agree with gfdl. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 16:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence the photographer licensed this image. The Flickr link is dead, and it was never license-reviewed. The purported communication at User:Slarre~commonswiki/Zappel Jazz only shows that the photographer agreed the photo could be used on Wikipedia, not that it could be reused for any purpose by anyone. 92.40.249.59 00:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- File was technically uploaded early enough to be a {{Grandfathered old file}}, however permission evidence was apparently only provided 5 weeks after the cutoff, so it should have been provided to OTRS. In any case, as nom suggests and Asclepias mentioned in the previous DR, we require an explicit statement regarding a specific license, instead of a passive agreement. While either problem individually (given the age of the file) would likely have me arguing to keep, both add up to a Delete in my opinion. Storkk (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Artist Väinö Saikko died in 1952, so the altar painting is protected until 2023. Htm (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
On the basis of Finnish law, this photograph is an independent artwork, and it's copyrights belong to me. No need to delete. The painting is in a minor role. Tvkosone (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The painting is De-Minimis. If required, we can crop the image and remove the copyrighted part. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Renominating the image for deletion for the same reason given above. The original nominator did not agree to my resolution. Sreejith K (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
On the basis of Finnish law, there is no requirement for deletion nor more cropping. The painting is in minor role, and it's already cropped. In the original one, e.g. Jesus's head is full shown. Tvkosone (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- What is in major role?--Htm (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- This photograph is an independent work, documentary one taken in a children's event. The focus is on the priest. Pictures main target is to describe the feeling and lighting in the altar / in the church. About the painting, it is cropped much, and it is located only in the background. The painting also is very much underexposed (I mean, not even close the original colors). Besides, the damages in the painting are more interesting here than the painting itself, and here the damages can be seen clearly. The damages aren't copyrighted to anybody. In the Finnish law, this picture absolutely is legal as I have took it and published it myself. And the churches are public places, that also is good to notice. Tvkosone (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- No children visible, just an adult woman. You should have upploaded this in fi-wiki and it could be used in the article about the artist, whose name you don't even bother to mention in the description. There is no FOP for artwork in Finland.--Htm (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- No need to name the priest (?), because then this picture should be some king of person register and it's not legal. I add the name of the artist, as you asked for. What means FOP? I don't understand the abbreviation. There are enough precedents in Finnish law for what is an independent art work, and this is. Tvkosone (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- No children visible, just an adult woman. You should have upploaded this in fi-wiki and it could be used in the article about the artist, whose name you don't even bother to mention in the description. There is no FOP for artwork in Finland.--Htm (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is a very close call, which is why I am not closing it. I think the painting is not the major focus of the image -- as the uploader says, it is very underexposed and heavily cropped, so I don't think the image infringes, but I respect the fact that some of our colleagues may disagree. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- FOP refers to: Commons:Freedom of panorama which in Finland means (shortly) that you can publish images of buildings but not artwork (paintings, sculpures etc.) freely. It is though good and even required to mention the designer or artist if known because of the moral rights of creators ("moraaliset oikeudet") which do not expire. - I think your work is derivative work, see Commons:Derivative works. --Htm (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then you are wrong about this (within this case, I mean). When an artwork is located in a public place (as a church is in Finland), it is legal to take and use a photo where the work is an element of the picture. Of course, a total reproduction of a work, as pictures main purpose is to show the artwork, are out of the permission. But this is not the situation here as I explained before. Even [this other picture] is absolutely legal to use by the Finnish Copyright Law (and yes, I have used it commercially as being photographer in the wedding). The painting isn't the central element of the picture, it's only in the background in this case, too. Tvkosone (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: I agree that this is DM but some will always disagree. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright VikiMemur (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright VikiMemur (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: If the uploader is the owner of the LinkedIn profile, no copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: And even if the uploader is the accountholder we would still need a release from the photographer or some explaining about how the rights are transferred. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Probably unfree (see other file uploaded by the same user, File:Astro2010.jpg); used for promotional (see article en:Alexsachi) Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Karolinkamalinka (talk · contribs)
[edit]detected exact matched img: https://yt3.ggpht.com/-lGVxVoFqL1s/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/ZkTZWlDccq4/s900-c-k-no/photo.jpg or, please see also: {{No permission since}}
Tokorokoko (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
fileがぼやけているから 58.88.61.198 08:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree that the image is basically unusable due to its exceptionally poor quality. Category:Airbus A330 of Aeroflot at Narita International Airport contains a number of infinitely better images of Aeroflot A330-200s at Narita Airport, such as File:Aeroflot A330-200(VP-BLX) (3580789913).jpg. --DAJF (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
_(3580789913).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
fileがぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Unusably poor quality image. Category:Boeing 747 of Lufthansa at Narita International Airport has loads of far better quality replacement images. --DAJF (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
ぼやけている、修正できないほど、暗すぎる 58.88.61.198 08:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Unusably poor quality image which serves no useful purpose. Category:JR East 701 in Akita livery contains numerous examples of far better images of the same train. --DAJF (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Ik wil niet meer dat het bestand wordt gebruikt. SaksischRos (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The file is uploaded by orginal author as own work under CC license and now being used in more than one article on nl-WP. Ongoing undecided debate, where the file is temp deleted at some places. GuppieB52 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Missing original source also unknown permission of the original version.Sarbaze naja (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete "Received" as author means that the photo was not done by Tasnim staff (see {{Tasnim}}), so the photo isn't freely licensed by Tasnim czar 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Missing original source also unknown permission of the original version.Sarbaze naja (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete "Received" as author means that the photo was not done by Tasnim staff (see {{Tasnim}}), so the photo isn't freely licensed by Tasnim czar 23:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
Missing original source also unknown permission of the original version.Sarbaze naja (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete "Received" as author means that the photo was not done by Tasnim staff (see {{Tasnim}}), so the photo isn't freely licensed by Tasnim czar 04:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Missing original source also unknown permission of the original version.Sarbaze naja (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete "Received" as author means that the photo was not done by Tasnim staff (see {{Tasnim}}), so the photo isn't freely licensed by Tasnim czar 04:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Foreign Minister Zarif meeting with Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah in London.jpg
[edit]
Missing original source also unknown permission of the original version.Sarbaze naja (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete "Received" as author means that the photo was not done by Tasnim staff (see {{Tasnim}}), so the photo isn't freely licensed by Tasnim czar 04:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ForumMedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work. Cartoonist should confirm license via COM:OTRS.
Storkk (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shervin acc (talk · contribs)
[edit]All very small, with no metadata and likely professionally shot. Photographer(s) should confirm license via COM:OTRS.
Storkk (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete In particular, File:Index32.jpeg might be a potential copyright violation of http://www.iscanews.ir/news/187648/~/ while File:Index 123.jpg still has the watermarks of the website feshwar.com. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGING.
— Racconish ☎ 13:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. Category:JR Hokkaido 785-300 contains plenty of infinitely better quality images of JR Hokkaido 785-300s on Super Hakucho services. --DAJF (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Inferior, unused duplicate of File:Aeroklub Toužim (LKTO).jpg. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no proof that the author or publisher licensed this cover. The authors other book File:Book cover - Shibari, the Art of Japanese Bondage.jpg has an OTRS tag but not this file. The uploader is unlikely to provide such evidence because they have made no other edits here. 92.40.249.59 00:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
almost identical to File:Venus en Mars Rijksmuseum SK-A-343.jpeg, from the same source, but lacking full color profile. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep You do not explain lacking full color profile. This file must be kept, with 3.418 × 2.544 pixels it is bigger and has higher resolution than File:Venus en Mars Rijksmuseum SK-A-343.jpeg. There are the pixels that count, not the size of the file. Because the size of the file depends also on the given information. If one wants to delete one of the two files, it should be the other, which is smaller considering the pixels.--Oursana (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- You can see the difference with the naked eye. Resolution is not key. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Trzęsacz just uploaded a new version with full colors. So now the other version should be deleted as a duplicate. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: File:Venus en Mars Rijksmuseum SK-A-343.jpeg and redirected to File:Hans Rottenhammer - Venus und Mars (Rijksmuseum).jpg. ~riley (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
fileがぼやけているから 58.88.61.198 08:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted by ViaAir ([4]) Gyrostat (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused as well, as above. ~riley (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
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 categorize the file correctly? Taivo (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. Category:Boeing 777 of All Nippon Airways at Narita International Airport contains a number of infinitely better quality images of ANA B777-300ERs at Narita Airport. --DAJF (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. Category:Vanilla Air aircraft at Narita International Airport contains loads of infinitely better quality images of Vanilla Air A320-200s at Narita Airport. --DAJF (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: No other files in Category:Boeing 747 of Korean Air Cargo at Incheon International Airport with the plane taxing/landed. ~riley (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. Category:Boeing 777 of Singapore Airlines at Narita International Airport contains loads of infinitely better quality images of Singapore Airlines B777s at Narita Airport. --DAJF (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Leyo 08:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Translation via Google: "Very small, blurry"
- Also note that a "757-400" doesn't seem to exist, so if kept it should be moved to something like "Air Transport International Boeing 757 at Hawaii.JPG". I'm tending towards Delete, though. --El Grafo (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This packaging is protected with copyright and cannot be in Commons without permission from producer. Taivo (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. Category:Boeing 777 of Alitalia at Narita International Airport contains loads of infinitely better quality images of Alitalia B777s at Narita Airport. --DAJF (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. Category:Airbus A330 of Vietnam Airlines at Narita International Airport contains loads of infinitely better quality images of Vietnam Airlines A330s at Narita Airport. --DAJF (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. Category:Boeing 787 of Thai Airways International at Narita International Airport contains loads of infinitely better quality images of Thai Airways International B787s at Narita Airport. --DAJF (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. Category:Airbus A380 of Thai Airways International at Narita International Airport contains loads of infinitely better quality images of Thai Airways International Airbus A380-800s at Narita Airport. --DAJF (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
http://www.adaptavist.com/w/wp-content/assets/themebuilder-icon-0B-100x100.png http://www.adaptavist.com/w/about/terms/ "All information, documents, products, goods, software, and services (the "Materials") provided on this Website were provided by or to Adaptavist by their respective manufacturers, authors, developers and vendors (the "Third Party Providers") and are the copyrighted work of Adaptavist and/or the Third Party Providers." No exception found for this image. Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Below COM:TOO. ~riley (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope Mitte27 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
File:KAL B777&B747-400& Jin air Boeing 737-800 & Asiana Airlines B747-400&A380-800& Lao Airlines A320-200 & JAL Boeing 767-300 & China Airlines Boeing 737-800 at Incheon International Airport.JPG
[edit]
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. Category:Airbus A340 of Swiss International Air Lines at Narita International Airport contains loads of infinitely better quality images of Swiss A340s at Narita Airport. --DAJF (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
http://www.adaptavist.com/w/products-plugins/adaptavist-scriptrunner/ © 2016 Adaptavist.com Ltd, Adaptavist Inc and Adaptavist Germany GmbH Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Above COM:TOO. ~riley (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Unusable poor quality image. Category:Boeing 747 of Cathay Pacific Cargo at Narita International Airport contains numerous examples that are far better quality. --DAJF (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Included web-address in watermark Motopark (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. --Stang 07:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
copyvio: http://www.adaptavist.com/w/products-plugins/premium/enterprise-notifications/ http://www.adaptavist.com/w/wp-content/assets/enterprise-notifications-OB-icon-100x100.png © 2016 Adaptavist.com Ltd, Adaptavist Inc and Adaptavist Germany GmbH Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Above COM:TOO. ~riley (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
copyvio: http://www.adaptavist.com/w/products-plugins/premium/forms-for-confluence/ http://www.adaptavist.com/w/wp-content/assets/forms-for-confluence-OB-icon-100x100.png © 2016 Adaptavist.com Ltd, Adaptavist Inc and Adaptavist Germany GmbH Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Below COM:TOO. ~riley (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope Mitte27 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably dark, poor quality image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. --DAJF (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Unusably blurred image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. --DAJF (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
copyvio: http://www.adaptavist.com/w/products-plugins/premium/content-formatting-macros/ http://www.adaptavist.com/w/wp-content/assets/content-formatting-macros-icon-100x100.png © 2016 Adaptavist.com Ltd, Adaptavist Inc and Adaptavist Germany GmbH Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Above COM:TOO. ~riley (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
copyvio: http://www.adaptavist.com/w/products-plugins/premium/forums/ http://www.adaptavist.com/w/wp-content/assets/community-forums-icon-100x100.png © 2016 Adaptavist.com Ltd, Adaptavist Inc and Adaptavist Germany GmbH Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Above COM:TOO. ~riley (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Poor quality, blurred image, with no obvious educational purpose. Used only on the uploader's indiscriminate image gallery, so this is outside the project scope, as explained in COM:INUSE. --DAJF (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Better version is available (see File:30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS.svg).--Der Rationalist (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Better version is available (see: File:29. Waffen-SS-Grenadier-Division („Italia“).svg).--Der Rationalist (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
How the file is in project scope? Taivo (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am the creator of this file, Leonardo Iannelli. I just added an edited tag to this image's page. Can that keep this from being deleted?
- For that you must explain, how the file is useful. Taivo (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am Italian and Russian, and I think this unofficial flag is a good way to represent Italy and Russia. They have relations.
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. Photographer should confirm license via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vlout as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: uploader request and copyright violation (copyright belongs to Novatrix publishers). I am not sure, that the design surpasses threshold of originality. File is used, that means, in scope. Taivo (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
When I uploaded it I thought that it is OK, because it´s collection of decisions of the Czech Supreme court. But now I must say I was wrong, this cover is work of the publihers. So, I don´t want any trouble. --Vlout (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Laberkiste as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Use of "Spiderman" assets. ↔ User: Perhelion 12:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Laberkiste as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Use of "Spiderman" assets ↔ User: Perhelion 12:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which assets would that be? Rename and keep. CFCF (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from copyright holder Fotobureau Hoge Noorden is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a 1970 work of US-artist Duane Hanson ; the picture can be found on the web and is probably not personal work. Do not follow (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
J'aimerais que la photo de l'ancienne gare de troissereux fouquenies soit supprimée, car elle est du domaine privée dorénavant ( racheté à titre privée depuis 2003) et voir une phot de ma maison sans mon consentement me dérange beaucoup. 185.24.187.194 13:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Torsade de Pointes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos/drawings. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Domnişoara Christina 1936.jpg
File:Antônio Pedro de Figueiredo.jpgFile:Louis Léger Vauthier.jpg- File:Mussolini Pensiero ed Azione.jpg
File:Aos Quebra-Kilos Rua L. do Rosário.jpgFile:Pega os Quebra-Kilos Travessa do Apollo.jpgFile:Pega os Quebra-Kilos Rua Tenorio.jpgFile:Quebra-Quilos 1874.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep File:Aos Quebra-Kilos Rua L. do Rosário.jpg, File:Pega os Quebra-Kilos Travessa do Apollo.jpg and File:Pega os Quebra-Kilos Rua Tenorio.jpg, from the collection of the Foundation Joaquim Nabuco de Pesquisas Sociais, e. g. [5]. The collection theoretically covers the end of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century, but is practically focused on the end of the 19th century [6]. These 3 works are anonymous and they likely contemporary of the Quebra–Quilos revolt (1875-1875). The license is obviously wrong for these files. File:Quebra-Quilos 1874.jpg is likely PD per [7]. — Racconish ☎ 19:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- PS : The license of the 3 cigarette labels have been corrected in the mean time. I have uploaded a larger image with the source and corrected the date and author. — Racconish ☎ 21:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- 6 files looks OK for me now. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: all but two. ~riley (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Svetlana Bogatyr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
_.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gary~Petticrew (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of copyrighted content (screenshot). FDMS 4 14:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Wrong author; not free to use Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Plain text file. If this information were ever needed it could be typed in. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Recommend speedy deletion: Appended to obvious hoax en:wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Collector Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Files by كبرياء يماني
[edit]All his files:Copyvio --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: most. ~riley (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Files by Bisquiter
[edit]All his files:Copyvio --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
No confidence in "own work" statement by uploader, small size, low resolution, no meta. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Underexposed, but same as http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1069850/mediaindex image of actress at that site. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Not own work, see description. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Collages require that each image be provided with source and license. This collage does not have any sources, and the images are obviously not own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Halgurd~enwiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. No indication of user's own work on these three identical photographs of an American footballer, taken from the sidelines or very close to play. More likely a getty or other professional image.
- File:Stephen Hutchinson - Scottish Claymores.jpg
- File:Stephen Hutchinson in action.jpg
- File:Stephen Hutchinson.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Clip with music. Unreviewed license. The music is indeed in CC via http://ccmixter.org/files/George_Ellinas/14073 but the video is unsourced (eventually somewhere http://openclipart.org?). Gunnex (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work, found (smaller) as user's panoramino user picture and other uses on the web. Seems to have been poorly photoshopped out of another image, see flat background. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
No source of graphic, see tiny print. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio of http://www.sdbmc.com/en/ (image cycles by) 173.228.4.123 16:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be the logo of a conference and could be a possible copyright violation ( see http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4071568.html ). I have doubts whether this is indeed the uploader's own work. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE, unused. ~riley (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be the logo of a conference and could be a possible copyright violation ( see http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4071568.html ). I have doubts whether this is indeed the uploader's own work. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE, unused. ~riley (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Contains work of another cameraman/photographer. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kevin Rankin Undeclared Gathering 2011.jpg Elisfkc (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
based on uploader's description, this image is not necessarily in the public domain Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by O Wikipedista (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status, considering declared by uploader to be — per image caption in related ptwiki entry "Luizinho Goebel" (Brazilian politician) — as "Foto: Herbert Weil" (photo by Herbert Weil"), needing permission and/or further details,
Gunnex (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Logo that is not being used in any article, and I dont think it is free being uploaded from an editor that has uploaded other copyright images. Qed237 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. ~riley (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
No indication that the uploader, PressArt ID, is the copyright holder, presumed to be Vénera Kastrati. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:OTRS. ~riley (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Para eliminar las versiones obsoletas presentes en el historial de archivos NDRV2090 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: (revisions) as above. ~riley (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image features an artistic work, photographed from a public space in Russia. --Pierre André (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC).
.jpg){kind=link}
- How old is this work? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Several hundreds of years - Jcb (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: copyright of the artistic work has obviously expired. --Jcb (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Farragutful as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: This is not the work of a government employee, but a private researcher. This appears to be a copyright violation.. Taivo (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
非常に小さい、ぼやけている 58.88.61.198 08:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused and outside of Commons' project scope, specifically Commons:Project scope#Must be a media file, second bullet point, as this is trivial to replace with an editable wikitable. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Very well. --Asadwarraich (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This image is the same as File:Badge.png.jpg (will be renamed to File:Guangzhou University Badge.jpg), but the only diffrence is that the watermarks in the buttom has been removed. There is no longer need for this image. Simeon Dahl (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I might have been to fast. I see that it's taken from: http://gzhu.admissions.cn/ - but that might go under Template:Textlogo? --Simeon Dahl (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for monuments. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Not own work, as specified. However, does it pass originality threshold? —Andrei S. Talk 15:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- OTRS-ticket in queue (ticket:2016042510009078). Josve05a (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: leaving it to the OTRS procedure. --Jcb (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted album cover, no OTRS permission. —Andrei S. Talk 15:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- OTRS-ticket in queue (ticket:2016042510009078). Josve05a (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: leaving it to the OTRS procedure. --Jcb (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
"obra de" means Work of Jose Rico Cejudo, not own work of uploader... would require COM:OTRS from the painter to be retained. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: José Rico Cejudo died in 1943 (first result in Google Search and even Category:José Rico Cejudo mentions that)... --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Still not own work, and still needs source. Paintings don't appear in midair for upload. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is quite obvious that is not work of the uploader, but from someone who died more than 70 years ago... --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: information fixed. --Jcb (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jarekt as no license. An IP later added a license. This license should be confirmed by the uploader. JuTa 20:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:Drover_statue_Newbridge-on-Wye.jpeg. --Jcb (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
the file does not comply COM:EURO, wrong licensing 85.48.121.105 21:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- COM:EURO says that the copyright to the national sides of coins depends on national law, so COM:EURO is not applicable here. Finnish coins are probably {{PD-FinlandGov}}, but the legal situation is unclear. See COM:CUR#Finland. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Currency#Finland. --Jcb (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Farragutful as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: This is not the work of a government employee, but a private researcher. This appears to be a copyright violation.. Taivo (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Farragutful as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: This is not the work of a US Government employee. This appears to be a copyright violation.. Taivo (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Farragutful as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: This is not the work of a US Government employee. This appears to be a copyright violation.. Taivo (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work by arwiki user "Almountasir": small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Nominating (per above) also by this user:
Gunnex (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Info Both files grabbed from http://rvee.e-monsite.com/pages/joueurs.html = http://www.rajacasablanca.com/Images/Joueurs/HichamRHIM.jpg + http://www.rajacasablanca.com/Images/Joueurs/HilalTAIR.jpg (last modified: 09.2009).Gunnex (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
