Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/05/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Copyright infringement? כאן: http://www.mouse.co.il/CM.articles_item,405,209,80563,.aspx כתוב "צילום: דובי ריין" ציון הלוי (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy per nomination. -- Geagea (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake, a duplicate of File:王人美与金焰结婚照.jpg,requested by uploader.螺钉 (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by ~riley. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JUMP House (talk · contribs)
[edit]Jump house company marketing material. File EXIF shows two different copyright holders. If uploader has permission to upload these an OTRS permission is required.
- File:JumpHouseBerlin Gesamtblick.jpg
- File:JUMPHouseBerlin SlamJUMP.jpg
- File:JUMPHouse BattleBox inAktion.jpg
- File:JUMPHouseBerlin WallJUMP inAktion.jpg
- File:JUMPHouse Dodgeball inAktion.jpg
- File:JUMPHouseBerlin BagFoamJUMP.jpg
- File:JumpHouseHamburg FreeJUMP.jpg
MKFI (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Indef blocked for promotional username. ~riley (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
redirect from a name with an obvious error Bahnfrend (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
redirect from a name with an obvious error Bahnfrend (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Qualifies for speedy. ~riley (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Francescounia (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. I searched a few, all were found on the internet. All the rest of these look like copyvios also, no (or conflicting) metadata, small and variable sizes, on field perspective and so on.
- File:Drittonadalindian2016.jpg.jpeg
- File:Ripresadinadal2016montecarlo.jpg.jpeg
- File:Servizio-battuta-di-nadal-madrid-2016.jpg.jpeg
- File:E -sul -tazione-di-nadal-2016-madrid.jpg.jpeg
- File:Drittoallenamentodinadal2016.jpg.jpeg
- File:Rafaaustralian2016.jpg.jpeg
- File:Drittocolpitodinadal2016.jpg.jpeg
- File:Imagesnadalwells2016.jpg.jpeg
- File:Finaleapertonadal2016.jpg.jpeg
- File:Nadalservizio.jpg.jpeg
- File:Nadal-caricamento-del-dritto-2016-madrid.jpg.jpeg
- File:Nadal-lancio-di-palla-2016-madrid.jpg.jpeg
- File:Nadalallenamento.jpg.jpeg
- File:NADALVSVERDASCOAO2016.jpg.jpeg
- File:Nadalindianwells.jpg.jpeg
- File:Nadalfinale.jpg.jpeg
- File:NADALVSVERDASCOINDIANWELLS2016.jpg
- File:Rafaelnadaltrofeomontecarlo2016.jpg
- File:Atp-montecarlo-2016-finale-nadal-monfils.jpg
- File:RAFAPOTENZA.jpg
- File:Nadalritornato.jpg
- File:Nadal indianwells2016.jpg.jpeg
- File:Nadal camone.jpg
- File:Rafael-nadal.jpg
- File:Nadal mutua madrid 2016.jpg
- File:Nadalao2016.jpg
- File:Roger-federer.jpg
- File:Rogerfedererrovescio.jpg
- File:ROGER-FEDERER-AUSTRALIAN-OPEN.jpg
- File:Ps-roger-federer.jpg
- File:Federerroger.jpg
- File:Imagemontecarlo 2016rogerfederer.jpg
- File:Federer4.jpg
- File:Imagesrogerfederer.jpg.jpeg
- File:Federer1nikeclay.jpg
- File:Federer2016montecarlo25.jpg
- File:Rogerfedererao2016.jpg
- File:Rogerfederermontecarlo2016.jpg
- File:Rogerfedererdiritto.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation, {{Copyvio}}. --Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Pokéfan95 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.ly.gov.tw/en/copyright.jsp is not compatible with our licensing policy.
Converting to DR to wait for OTRS permission. ★ Poké95 12:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 立法院網站資料開放宣告即為立法院網站的中文授權聲明，內容便提到「立法院全球資訊網（以下簡稱本網站）網站上刊載之所有資料與素材，其得受著作權保護之範圍，以無償、非專屬，得再授權之方式提供公眾使用，使用者得不限時間及地域，重製、改作、編輯、公開傳輸或為其他方式之利用，開發各種產品或服務（簡稱加值衍生物），此一授權行為不會嗣後撤回，使用者亦無須取得本機關之書面或其他方式 授權。然使用時，應註明出處。」而符合維基共享資源的許可協議。--KOKUYO (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep, the Legislative Yuan have had released new licensing for all copyrighted materials, therefore these materials now are in free domain, whera compatible with Commons licensing policy. Unfortunately, the Legislative Yuan haven't renew the statements in English as they were released.- The following is quoted from Copyright Statements (in Traditional Chinese)
| “ |
一、 授權方式及範圍 |
” |
- Collectively translation as follows:
| “ |
|
” |
- @assanges ‧ (talk | cont | uploads) 13:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn/Kept: Thanks to assanges to the translation. Even though it is not really a CC license, their terms of use seems to be compatible with our licensing policy. ★ Poké95 00:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)
Out of scope: an advertisement with no educational value IagoQnsi (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by ~riley: Mass deletion of pages added by Rahoonline
G7: Author or uploader request deletion M Lar (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: G7: Author or uploader request deletion
Wrong author see https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emilie_Ouellette&diff=126049602&oldid=126049063 Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Copyright violation: http://www.courrierlaval.com/Culture/2013-09-28/article-3407756/Humour-sur-mesure-pour-parents-de-bebes/1
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Delete/fr
Promotional upload, likely not user's own work, see how small it is. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear spam. ~riley (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE ~riley (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Permission via email given to delete. ~riley (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I want to create a new topic Osmmuha (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I will create a new article Osmmuha (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I want to clear it Osmmuha (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I want to clear it Osmmuha (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I want to clear it Osmmuha (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I want to clear it Osmmuha (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by ~riley: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Out of scope — Racconish ☎ 12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-trivial logo. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded SVG version instead: File:Tirol_kliniken_logo.svg Simon04 (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Jeff car craft pro builder.jpg
- File:1982 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham.jpg
- File:Jeff Schwartz BF Goodrich Nation of Go.jpg
INeverCry 23:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvios. INeverCry 05:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
May not be own work. COM:DW
MCMLXXXIX 16:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It's from here, this file 2003:4D:2C35:7013:BC5E:761D:C261:801C 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until the permission at OTRS is processed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It's from here, this file 2003:4D:2C35:7013:BC5E:761D:C261:801C 17:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until the permission at OTRS is processed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It's from here, this file 84.149.77.8 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until the permission at OTRS is processed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It's from here, this file 84.149.77.8 17:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until the permission at OTRS is processed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It's from here, this file 2003:4D:2C35:7013:BC5E:761D:C261:801C 17:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until the permission at OTRS is processed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It's from here, this file 2003:4D:2C35:7013:BC5E:761D:C261:801C 17:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until the permission at OTRS is processed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Wrong author and/or licence: watermarked screenshot Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Presumable copyvio. Uploader has provided multiple scrrenshots from copyrighted broadcasts, claiming them as his own work, and this is likely just another violation despite the lack of a watermark/logo The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Presumable copyvio. Uploader has provided multiple scrrenshots from copyrighted broadcasts, claiming them as his own work, and this is likely just another violation despite the lack of a watermark/logo, Enwiki caption by uploader identifies the source as a BBC broadcast The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Presumable copyvio. Uploader has provided multiple scrrenshots from copyrighted broadcasts, claiming them as his own work, and this is likely just another violation despite the lack of a watermark/logo The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, just for derision, no educational purpose Pippobuono (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not out of scope, but it's a copyvio so the point is moot. -IagoQnsi (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation. The photo is not the uploaders own work. --Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Image of small size with no exif data which makes me suspect that this image was copied from elsewhere. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: here, click the > button twice. Deleted as obvious copyvio. — regards, Revi 07:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative (from a map) and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond.
- File:석계 백채김치위치.png
- File:광운대 만남곱창위치.png
- File:시장떡볶이 위치.png
- File:광운대 만남곱창 위치.png
- File:석계역 백채 김치찌개.png
- File:시장떡볶이..png
Basvb (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: All from Naver Maps, proprietary map service. Deleted as obvious copyvio. — regards, Revi 07:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Elizabeth Sabin Goodwin (1902-1980) (3397805195).jpg Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, no duplicate, it's different --Atamari (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- withdrawn similar, not equal. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Closed: Withdraw. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Missing permission as of 8 May 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.
Unused subsequent render duplicate of File:Kicker-Sportmagazin logo.svg ↔ User: Perhelion 10:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- PS: on En: you can see an exact duplicate of this and on the name the source of the SVG:
en:File:Kicker-Sportmagazin logo svg July2011.png↔ User: Perhelion 16:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yog4rt
[edit]Promotional or self-promotional uploads with no indication of true artist of logos, likely COM:COPYVIOs as they appear to rip off the Anonymous logo and other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 2016-05-10T18:04:04 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, since there is no EXIF data to prove that the uploader is the copyright holder, and the resolution is low.
- File:Connie016.jpg
- File:Quicentrosur3 .jpg
- File:5384ad4883884.jpg
- File:ImgM62.jpg
- File:Cortefiel.jpg
- File:De prati mujer constanza.jpg
- File:Collage De Prati Constanza.png
★ Poké95 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete not own work, according to the filename File:5384ad4883884.jpg is from http://www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/construir/samborondon-plaza-navona.html for example. --Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Paulo Fernando Pernambuco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work, since there is no EXIF data to prove that the uploader is the copyright holder, and the resolution is low.
- File:02-Conheça-Paulo-Fernando-de-Paulista.jpg --> taken from http://juntoscompaulo.com.br/biografia/ (Copyright © 2016 · Todos os Direitos Reservados · Juntos com Paulo Fernando) = http://juntoscompaulo.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/02-Conhe%C3%A7a-Paulo-Fernando-de-Paulista.jpg (last modified: 03.2016
- File:Paulo Fernando luta para ser representante do povo na câmara municipal de Paulista.jpg --> taken from (example) http://juntoscompaulo.com.br/2016/04/paulo-fernando-e-o-nome-mais-requisitado-para-o-legislativo-do-paulista/ (Copyright © 2016 · Todos os Direitos Reservados · Juntos com Paulo Fernando) = http://juntoscompaulo.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Paulo-Fernando-%C3%A9-o-nome-mais-requisitado-para-o-legislativo-do-Paulista.jpg (last modified: 04.2016) or https://www.facebook.com/JuntosComPaulo/photos/pb.181996368593401.-2207520000.1462898873./885438241582540/?type=3&theater (04.2016)
★ Poké95 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, unless COM:OTRS permission (informing also about the original photographer: can't taken by himself...). Gunnex (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Amol shinde s.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde d.jpg
- File:Amol shinde jp.jpg
- File:Amol shinde pnx.JPG
- File:Amol shinde je.JPG
- File:Amol Shinde va.JPG
- File:Amol shinde nc.jpg
- File:Amol shinde me.jpg
- File:Amol shinde nd.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde n.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde f.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde s.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde v.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde sr.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde p.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde raje.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde ng.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde in.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde.png.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde pnc.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde png.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde jpg.jpg
- File:Amol shinde jpg.JPG
- File:Amol Shinde Jpg.JPG
- File:Amol Shinde Jpeg.JPG
- File:Amol Shinde.a.JPG
- File:Amol shinde.er.JPG
- File:Amol shinde.jp.JPG
- File:Varsha singh.JPG
--ghouston (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
out of scope — unused personal images
- File:Shinde amol.av.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde.im.jpg
- File:Amol shinde.img.jpg
- File:Amol Shinde.jpegg.jpg
- File:Amol shinde.jpeg.JPG
- File:Amol shinde.JPG
- File:Amol Shinde.jpg
Daphne Lantier 00:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Soviet Toys (1924).webm with non PD soundtrack — Racconish ☎ 07:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've deleted file --Butko (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Butko. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused low quality images - looks like personal photos, commons is not a photo album
- File:AnabelaBorges13.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges12.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges11.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges10.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges9.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges7.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges8.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges6.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges5.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges4.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges3.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges1.jpg
- File:AnabelaBorges2.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Navin-born 2 win
[edit]Unused personal files out of project scope. COM:NOTHOST --Rrburke (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Scan of a photo. Derivative work.
-- Geagea (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused image of no value, possibly a copyvio. This, that and the other (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Not own work - appears to be taken from a game called goat simulator! https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Goat%20Simulator Gbawden (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused image. Subject's consent for posting of image not clear HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 20:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Gbawden (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo, prev used on a promotional WP user page but not an active WP user Gbawden (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ARISTARCHUS (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
spam, del on DE Nolispanmo 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Véase el alcance del proyecto.
- File:Augusto memvam mba hecho alferez, sentado en la oficina.jpg
- File:Augusto memvam mba hecho alferez.JPG
- File:Augusto memvam mba, sentado en el bar Bingamle.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- File:Josefa y augusto memvam.JPG
- File:Memvam mba, sentado.JPG
- File:Memvam mba, con el uniforme por primera vez.jpg
- File:Augusto memvam mba bikie.JPG
- File:Alf. Augusto Memvam Mba, en Ouazazat de Marruecos.png
- File:Pinocho.memvam, refrescando.JPG
- File:Memvam en la escuela real.png
- File:Augusto memvam mba finalista.png
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Personal photos, out of scope, commons is not a photo album
- File:Augusto MEMVAM MBA, entre la Brigada de oficiales , en la base de las fuerzas aereas de Malabo 2014.png
- File:Augusto Memvam Mba, en la oficina del ministerio.jpg
- File:Augusto MEMVAM MBA, en el palacio de congresos de ngolo (Bata) dia 2 agosto 2014.JPG
- File:Augusto Memvam mba, durante los ensayos del 12 de octubre 2013.JPG
- File:Augusto MEMVAM MBA Bikie . Pinocho Mba.JPG
- File:Alf. Augusto MEMVAM MBA, probando los paseos por primera vez ..jpg
- File:Augusto Memvam Mba, en el .......jpg
- File:Augusto Memvam Mba, de compra.jpg
- File:Alf. Augusto Memvam Mba, en el centro de Ben guerir.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aziz melki (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, commons is not a photo album
Gbawden (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Highly unlikely that this is own work, clearly from the internet Gbawden (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No ways is this own work Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WordlyEmma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, out of scope
- File:BariRestrickMalone 6.jpg
- File:BariRestrickMalone 4.PNG
- File:BariRestrickMalone 5.JPG
- File:BariRestrickMalone 3.JPG
- File:BariRestrickMalone 1.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrade Guthierri (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Andrade Guthierri. Historical photos or paintings may be in public domain by other means but relevant info (proper author/date of creation or first disclosure/country of creation information) must be provided to determine copyrights status.
- File:Inauguração 70.jpg
- File:Frei Jansweid.jpg
- File:Outrora de Ita.jpg
- File:Matriz de Itaporanga 1970.jpg
- File:Veu ambula-santo sete-500x500.jpg
- File:Igreja do Rosário antigamente.jpg
- File:Nossa Senhora doada por portugal.jpg
- File:Igreja do Rosário1e2.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Irrelevant for article about ship. Historical documents should be used instead. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, no license, and a derivative work of copyrighted software. --★ Poké95 01:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Song. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pratik.thakker (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
- File:תרומת פרויקט מסע למשק הלאומי.pdf
- File:מחקר אימפקט בעברית סופי (1).pdf
- File:פרוטוקול ההחלטת הממשלה בנושא הגדלת פוטנציאל ההון האנושי בתחום הסייבר בישראל באמצעות פרויקט מסע.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ladymikkelsen (talk · contribs)
[edit]Outo of scope
- File:Leo Previley el Youtuber.jpg
- File:Leo Previley.jpg
- File:4875996 640px.jpg
- File:Photow234.jpg
- File:4834614 640px.jpg
- File:4834609 640px.jpg
— Racconish ☎ 15:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arts Chowdhury (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
- File:Fariha Sultana Mim beautiful Eyes.jpg
- File:Fariha Sultana Mim on bus.jpg
- File:Fariha Sultana Mim jr.jpg
- File:Fariha sultana mim.jpg
- File:Fariha Sultana Mim.jpg
— Racconish ☎ 16:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arts Chowdhury (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
- File:Fariha Sultana Mim child looke.jpg
- File:Fariha Sultana Mim child look 1.jpg
- File:Fariha Sultana Mim child look.jpg
- File:Fariha Sultana Mim golden look.jpg
— Racconish ☎ 16:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alastrauniformes (talk · contribs)
[edit]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. Uploaded 10.05.2016. If IN scope, needs permission via https://www.facebook.com/alastra.uniformes/photos/pb.1646523212257640.-2207520000.1462898058./1732018893708071/?type=3&theater (04.2016) and (example) https://www.facebook.com/alastra.uniformes/photos/a.1647857148790913.1073741825.1646523212257640/1647857155457579/?type=3&theater (2015).
Gunnex (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Per FBMD... grabbed from Facebook = https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1152449354766656&set=a.155705701107698.32006.100000048067422&type=3&theater (02.2016) Gunnex (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Matheus e Alex (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used (completely unknown Brazilian footbal club, logos most likely derived from otherwise copyrighted content)
- File:FC. Real Favela editando.jpg
- File:Time Fc Real Favela da zona sul.jpg
- File:Time Fc Real Favela.jpg
- File:FC. Real Favela .png
- File:FOOTBALL CLUB REAL FAVELA DA ZONA SUL (OFFICIAL ) Wikipedia.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Nominating also further uploads:
- File:Sempre foi o melhor emblema.jpg
- File:Modelo do club A.jpg
- File:Mascote R F V.jpg
- File:Escudo do soccer.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AyselkaDjabrailova (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that any of these small head shots of men are the own work of the uploader, instead they might be official portraits from some unacknowledged series, but they are certainly not own work. The two pictures which are no head shots don't have any metadata either and are also small.
- File:Tərlan Fərəcov.png
- File:Zaur Əhmədov.png
- File:Qalib Əfəndiyev.png
- File:Əli Əmirov.png
- File:Rüstəm Əliyev.png
- File:Zahid Əliyev.png
- File:Balabəy Əlibəyov.png
- File:Eldar Əzimov.png
- File:Xubəli Əzizov.png
- File:Dünyamalıyev Məhəmməd.png
- File:Nurəddin Cəfərov.png
- File:Qurban Cəlilov.png
- File:Qərib Calalov.png
- File:Bədəlov Rza.png
- File:Bağırov Mikayıl.png
- File:Nəsrulla Babayev.png
- File:Fikrət Babazadə.png
- File:Soltanağa Ağayev.png
- File:Новый рисунок.png
- File:Новый рисунок (2).png
- File:Новый рисунок (1).png
- File:Midhət Abasov.png
- File:Akif Əlizadə (1992).jpg
- File:Akif Alizade (1972).jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: very unlikely to be own works Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AyselkaDjabrailova (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. A series of head shots of men, all claimed own work but of various, small sizes and poor quality without a camera or other useful metadata in the batch.
- File:Subhi Salayev.png
- File:Tarlan Farajov.png
- File:Zaur Ahmadov.png
- File:Galib Efendiyev.png
- File:Ali Amirov.png
- File:Rustam Aliyev.png
- File:Zahid Aliyev.png
- File:Balabey Alibeyov.png
- File:Eldar Azimov.png
- File:Khubali Azizov.png
- File:Mahammad Dunyamaliyev.png
- File:Nuraddin Jafarov.png
- File:Gurban Jalilov.png
- File:Garib Jalalov.png
- File:Rza Badalov.png
- File:Mikayil Baghirov.png
- File:Nasrulla Babayev.png
- File:Fikret Babazadeh.png
- File:Soltanagha Aghayev.png
- File:Asan-Nuri Abdulla.png
- File:Igor Ametov.png
- File:Zohhak Abbasov.png
- File:Midhat Abasov.png
- File:Shirali Mammadov.png
- File:Ahad Yagubov.png
- File:Abramovich Mikhail.png
- File:Enver Alikhanov.png
- File:Abdul Aliyev.png
- File:Ezel Sultanov.png
- File:Gambay Alizadeh.png
- File:Mammad Aghabeyov.png
- File:Geology and Geophysics Institute.jpg
- File:Fazil Mammadov.png
- File:Ali Mammadov.png
- File:Tovsif Mammadov.png
- File:Bakhtiyar Mammadov.png
- File:Arif Mammadzadeh.png
- File:Ogtay Mammadbeyov.png
- File:Lutfali Malikaslanov.png
- File:Aghasaf Movsumov.png
- File:Ruzi Musayev.png
- File:Jalal Mahmudov.png
- File:Rafig Mahmudov.png
- File:Murad Mahmudov.png
- File:Boris Listenqarten.png
- File:Moisey Gusman.png
- File:Ramiz Gurbanov.png
- File:Mammadpasha Guluzadeh.png
- File:Saftar Guliyev.png
- File:Rafig Guliyev.png
- File:Yusif Guliyev.png
- File:İsrafil Guliyev.png
- File:Arif Guliyev.png
- File:Atulla Gasimov.png
- File:Azer Gasimli.png
- File:Mammadjavad Gasimzadeh.png
- File:Mir Ulduz Garayev.png
- File:Alexei Koshelev.png
- File:Gafar İsmayilov.png
- File:Tofig Khismetov.png
- File:Rauf Khasayev.png
- File:Arif Khasayev.png
- File:Asif Hasanov.png
- File:Hummat Huseynov.png
- File:Majid Huseynzadeh.png
- File:Həsən Hümbətov.png
- File:Bəhman Hacıyev.png
- File:Seyid Qasım Hadıyev.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work of photograph https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3a/17/a6/3a17a614319cd8b34e9b6dcf079be60f.jpg, unattributed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --★ Poké95 12:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Labraysien45 (talk · contribs)
[edit]This gallery is of artworks claimed to be own work, however many of them are signed with a different name. I searched for that name and did not find any notable artist of that name, only Facebooks of various people. Commons is not a gallery for non-notable artists to display work and attach it to wiki articles in an effort to get attention. I am nominating all of these as out of COM:SCOPE as I see no educational use in any of them. Several are derivative works of unattributed photographs yet also claimed as own work. Others, such as File:Famille dark.jpg, violate the copyright of Disney/Lucas film. There are other examples of this sort throughout.
- File:Iceberg - Copie.jpg
- File:Jeanne lisa.jpg
- File:Paradis fiscal.jpg
- File:Fauve.jpg
- File:Retrofuturisme-5.jpg
- File:Robot artdeco.jpg
- File:TAUREAU.jpg
- File:OVNI 2015 07 15 FRANCE LOIRET.jpg
- File:SUV MINI.jpg
- File:AILLEURS.jpg
- File:SUV LAMBO.jpg
- File:Bof.jpg
- File:AM SUV.jpg
- File:Bobonnets.jpg
- File:T 1.jpg
- File:Eglise de glace.jpg
- File:Hippo campe.jpg
- File:Merouarourou.jpg
- File:Gravure (1).jpg
- File:Loire sécheresse.jpg
- File:Aquarium sea horse.jpg
- File:Famille dark.jpg
- File:Monalisa-la-soeur.jpg
- File:Prison-.jpg
- File:Sculpture-int-2.jpg
- File:Charrette-c.jpg
- File:Fermier-c.jpg
- File:Jeaconde.jpg
- File:Sculpture-int-1.jpg
- File:Dossiersecret.jpg
- File:Moto HD.jpg
- File:Bottes-moai.jpg
- File:Etudesculptureyoda-.jpg
- File:Statue-yoda.jpg
- File:ETexplorateur-1.jpg
- File:Monalisa-descendance.jpg
- File:Selfie au louvre.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. --★ Poké95 12:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this official looking identity photo. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIOs. No indication of own work on any of these group shots (particularly the ones with over printing), likewise for the under the basket shots, the logos and the blog cover page, all are too small or of variable sizes without metadata (but one photo which is huge with data).
- File:Bilbao-Basket.jpg
- File:Foto oficial Herbalife Gran Canaria 2014-15pequeña1-1024x721.jpg
- File:1420496218 989445 1420496323 noticia grande.jpg
- File:Baskonia-EuroLeague.jpg
- File:REAL-MADRID-VALENCIA-BASKET-5.jpg
- File:2015-10-22 FOTO OFICIAL BASQUET 008.v1445588853.jpg
- File:Mate-de-Sergio-Llull.jpg
- File:1444717963 extras noticia foton 7 1.jpg
- File:1444342548 extras albumes 0 980.jpg
- File:S2h892.jpg
- File:Logo1SDFVBAFB.jpg
- File:Logotipo-Red-Bull-Rampage.jpg
- File:Redbullrampage-logo.jpg
- File:Winning run blog.jpg
- File:FIGURE-01-RAMPAGE-LOGO.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anu.kapoor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Newspapers, promo pictures, probable CD covers, actor face shots and so on are not own work. Useless metadata, variable sizes and subject material.
- File:Tu Hi Tu Hai - Moxx Music -.jpg
- File:Raj Mahajan (2).JPG
- File:Tochinaamah.jpg
- File:Teri Yaad Mein Maa - Moxx Music Company.jpg
- File:Kavi Dr Sunil Jogi & Raj Mahajan.JPG
- File:Raj Mahajan.jpg
- File:Raj Mahajan Moxx.JPG
- File:Raj Mahajan Punjab Kesari News Paper 17 April 2016 Sunday.jpg
- File:Bhupi Singh (Left) and Raj Mahajan.JPG
- File:Moxx Music Logo.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bilal Subzwari (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. Fun with Photoshop, taking various images and mashing them together, however the result is not only a series of copyright violations, but is out of COM:SCOPE because commons is not the place to promote yourself in this manner.
- File:SB-1 (22222).jpg
- File:SB-1 (28).jpg
- File:SB-1 (27).jpg
- File:SB-1 (26).jpg
- File:SB-1 (24).jpg
- File:SB-1 (25).jpg
- File:SB-1 (17).jpg
- File:SB-1 (23).jpg
- File:SB-1 (18).jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MASSIMO SOLDATI (talk · contribs)
[edit]Whatever these images are, the claim of own work is not credible. Photos are old, older, oldest... but have no sources.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of unidentified subjects with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for education and out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not a selfie, but if you read the page this is attached to, it looks like some form of self-promotion, promotion or creative writing effort. I don't see how this image can be own work of uploader who claims to be subject. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Whatwedropent (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on this promotional series of South African musicians. At least one CD cover, and some promo pictures do not an own work make.
- File:-SELFTITLED First Album .png
- File:-SELFTITLED Album Cover.jpg
- File:Comin' At Ya Mixtape pic.jpg
- File:Pic Comin' At Ya Live.jpg
- File:PitygrittyPerforming.png
- File:Pitygritty Performing In South Africa 2015.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
imho rather 'posing', file not in use at Wikimedia projects, and doubtful educational usefulness, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons, Roland zh (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pmemachine (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on either logo or the old photo.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Андрій Гриценко (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on any of these three photos and one crest.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Андрій Гриценко (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Promotional or self-promotional uploads without sources. These same photos of the bikes are in use on the internet with the background stripped out as catalog entries for sale. Commons is not an advertising platform. Notice uploaders name, file names and product, all same.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
non-notable subject, very small and overprinted image not in use, seems to be out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Logo obviously not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
If this were uploaded by the man in the picture, this is obviously not a selfie, however, when examined in light of the use of this image, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sean_DeBlasa, it is self-promotional and out of COM:SCOPE as well as the question of the copyright of whoever actually took the image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not a selfie-> look at the page in use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sean_DeBlasa to see it used for self-promotional purposes. And "submission declined" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sean_DeBlasa. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chopin Etudes (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on any of these images, very small sizes, single focus on "DeBlasa" shows that these were uploaded for promotional/self-promotional purposes and are most likely COM:COPYVIOs, not own work of uploader. Notice the placement at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sean_DeBlasa which shows the promotional effect/intent. And "submission declined" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sean_DeBlasa:
- File:DeBlasa Logo.png
- File:DeBlasaBike.jpg
- File:DeBlasaIncPickups.jpg
- File:DeBlasaInc.jpg
- File:SeanDeBlasaImport.jpg
- File:SeanDeBlasa.jpg
- File:CorsicaC..jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This looks more like a rephotograph of an artwork than a user's own work. Please provide the maker's name of the original artwork. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused headshot but which looks like it was blown up from some other source than own work. Looks half-toned or excessively pixelated. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Doodle art by non-notable artist. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metada, and problems with the user's other uploads.
- File:Chase-N-Dough-Studio-Pics-by-HyperVision-Photography-1.jpg – the same photo (albeit more tightly cropped) can be found at http://rubyhornet.com/interview-record-producers-chase-n-dough/ more than three years before the uploader claims to have created it
- File:Chase-N-Dough-Studio-Pics-by-HyperVision-Photography-5-e1350677239110.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Claimed as own work, which is unlikely as large church has a copyrighted logo and wouldn't depend on an individual to create a logo and claim it as their own. Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Above the TOO in Australia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Derivative photo of unlicensed cutscene/animation sequence. Would need permission from the animation still's author. czar 01:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
~riley (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, since there is no EXIF data to prove that the uploader is the photographer, and the resolution is low.
★ Poké95 03:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No source or copyright information for original images.
- File:Anahita Ratebzad First of May Kabul.jpg
- File:Anahita Ratebzad Bandung Conference Indonesia.jpg
- File:Anahita Ratebzad in United States 1951.jpg
--ghouston (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Two of the images can be found at http://www.sarkhat.com/fa/news/139711076/
- File:Anahita Ratebzad International Workers' Day Kabul 1960s.jpg
- File:Anahita Ratebzad Asian Women's Conference Ceylon 1957.jpg
- File:Anahita Ratebzad 1951.jpg
--ghouston (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope Laber□T 19:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rathoah mohd ali mirpur azad kashmir. (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal low-quality photos of subjects with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful and therefore outside of Commons' project scope.
—LX (talk, contribs) 19:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --★ Poké95 08:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rathoah mohd ali mirpur azad kashmir. (talk · contribs)
[edit]None of these images appear to be created by the uploader.
- File:Zafar iqbal hospital 1 8888.jpg
- File:Slamic-Duaa’s-for-All-Occasions-Importance-and-Benefits-of-Surah-Yasin-Importance-of-Duaa-Supplication-in-Islam.jpg
- File:Zafar111.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a screenshot, with no permissions Mlpearc (open channel) 19:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SarahTruszkowski (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF (5 digicams), found elsewhere on the web. Uploaded in a row on 07./08.03.2016 for en:Draft:Marsha Kennedy, a living artist from Canada and en:Draft:Jan Crawford Winton (also from Canada) including shots from artworks (mostly taken - per exif - by "Gary Robins") and personal shots grabbed from Internet. Multiple permissions from the artists etc. needed.
- File:Winton paintingpaper.jpg
- File:Wintonredpainting.jpg
- File:Mk-birdsnest08 e1.jpg
- File:Janpaint.jpg
- File:AmorAtLength..2007.jpg
- File:LayMeDownToSleep2010.jpg
- File:He Sings To Her 2015.jpg
- File:Marsha kennedy.jpg
- File:PortraitWinton.jpg
- File:Both(After Ligozzi).jpg
- File:Are etching.jpg
- File:Pink Winton Oil Painting.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no indication or proof that the conditions of Commons:Second Life are met. The page at the source link does neither provide a license, a statement about the copyright holder, nor any hints if the conditions are met. AFBorchert (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
All files likely copyvios and screengrabs.
Basvb (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Original might be PD-old, but then we need some info on the source Basvb (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FELIPE GUTIERREZ SILVA (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Last image is not a logo but unclear and out of scope image with non descriptive title.
- File:LOGO VECTOR GUTIERREZNEGATIVO.png
- File:LOGO VECTOR GUTIERREZ WEB.png
- File:AAEAAQAAAAAAAAS3AAAAJDRmYjI3YTZmLTI1OTctNGQ2OC1iNjNlLTYwZGEwNjU4NzRiYQ.jpg
Basvb (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Studios js (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond.
Basvb (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond.
Basvb (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Not own work as claimed but from sporkforge.com Basvb (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative from an older image and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. The file could fall within the public domain because of its age. If this is the case information about the source, author and date of the original work should be given to verify this. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative from an older image (1953) and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. The file could fall within the public domain because of its age. If this is the case information about the source, author and date of the original work should be given to verify this. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Advertising content, out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is no place to advertise and files should be reasonably useful for an educational purpose. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jiří Adalbert Jirásek (talk · contribs)
[edit]Series of mainly art works. All images are unused. Firstly permission should be verified if a well known artist. Besides that the art uses lot of derivative texts and images and as such their permission should be described as well. Currently I would consider all images out of scope as personal art works.
- File:Okupace 48-134.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-135.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-133.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-132.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-131.JPG
- File:Okupace 48-130.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-129.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-128.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-127.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-126.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-125.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-124.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-123.JPG
- File:Okupace 48-122.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-121.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-120.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-119.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-118.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-117.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-116.JPG
- File:Okupace 48-115.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-114.JPG
- File:Okupace 48-112.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-111.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-110.JPG
- File:Okupace 48-109.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-108.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-107.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-105.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-106.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-104.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-102.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-103.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-101.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-98.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-99.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-100.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-97.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-96.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-95.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-92.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-94.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-93.JPG
- File:Okupace 48-89.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-91.jpg
- File:Okupace 48-90.JPG
- File:Hle 2.jpg
- File:Hle 1.jpg
- File:Pohlednice.jpg
- File:Návštěva.jpg
- File:Stela.jpg
- File:Padá.jpg
- File:Jisek.jpg
- File:AaE.jpg
- File:Já.jpg
Basvb (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jiří Adalbert Jirásek (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted work by Jiří Jirásek, artist's permission needed via COM:OTRS except if exhibited permanently on a public place.
- File:Do tmy.jpg
- File:Dokola.jpg
- File:Kniha karikatur.jpg
- File:S lidskou tváří.jpg
- File:Za svpbpdu.jpg
- File:Úkryt.jpg
- File:Nebude krátká.jpg
- File:Po zabijačce.jpg
- File:Tanky SSSR.jpg
- File:Plakát .jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jiří Adalbert Jirásek (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted work by Jiří Jirásek, artist's permission needed via COM:OTRS
- File:Vyhlídky.jpg
- File:Ptáci.jpg
- File:Stíny 2.jpg
- File:Co dál.jpg
- File:Jediné.jpg
- File:Slina.jpg
- File:Kamení.jpg
- File:Rozpad.jpg
- File:Třesky.jpg
- File:Nesnesitelná.jpg
- File:Kopista.jpg
- File:Klec.jpg
- File:Šplháme.jpg
- File:Pět minut.jpg
- File:Zátiší s hlavou.jpg
- File:Black and.jpg
- File:Plakát .jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; owing a picture does not mean to hold the copyright too. Permission from the artist/copyright holder needed. --Wdwd (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Photomediaapps (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertising content, out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is no place to advertise and files should be reasonably useful for an educational purpose. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond.
- File:PIP Photo Frame.png
- File:PIP Camera Photo Grid.png
- File:PIP Camera Photo Effects.png
- File:PIP Camera Download.png
Basvb (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Advertising content, out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is no place to advertise and files should be reasonably useful for an educational purpose. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Advertising content, out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is no place to advertise and files should be reasonably useful for an educational purpose. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. See file description Basvb (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
promotional Takeaway (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
logo equivocado Dcerongam (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused promotional logo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, Commons is not a private photo album. ★ Poké95 03:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, since there is no EXIF data to prove that the uploader is the copyright holder of the image, and the resolution is low. ★ Poké95 03:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: "no EXIF data" is no valid reason for deletion, image not found elsewhere on the internet. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, since there is no EXIF data to prove that the uploader is the photographer, and the resolution is low. ★ Poké95 03:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate of File:Tsuda2016-2.jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Steinsplitter: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:9 MOISEI, UDIA, IOSIA.jpg
This file looks to be a derivative (screengrab from tv) and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Steinsplitter: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ledeir
Advertising content, out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is no place to advertise and files should be reasonably useful for an educational purpose. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Steinsplitter: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pre-Marriage Portfolio Photographer Camaal Mustafa Sikander in Saharanpur (UP).jpg
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like this image was taken from this website: http://thelead.com.ng/exclusive-with-prof-alexia-thomas-british-fiery-activist/ - it may not be free.
- Delete {{Copyvio}} --Stefan2 (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Logo can't be own and free. Spamer's, Animaloid (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, since there is no EXIF data to prove that the uploader is the copyright holder of the image. OTRS permission is needed. ★ Poké95 09:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The presence of Exif data wouldn't prove that an uploader is the copyright holder, and OTRS permission isn't required just because a file doesn't have Exif data, as far as I know. --ghouston (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: the plant is Oenothera speciosa - MPF (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There's no requirement that EXIF be present. This is a useful image, so unless any other problems arise, there's no way this should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Keep althrough the file name needs to be renamed as there is no species named Rozulius Herpomenius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flow234 (talk • contribs)
Kept: "no EXIF data" is no valid reason for deletion, image not found elsewhere on the internet. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Logo can't be own or free Animaloid (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Logo seems to be above the threshold of originality. --★ Poké95 09:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:09, 17 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) 10:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: "small photo without metadata" is no valid reason for deletion, image not found elsewhere on the internet. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, taken from facebook Didym (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
this pic has a low file resolution and no exif so it is unclear if it's own work Queryzo (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: all over the internet already. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
out of scope — Racconish ☎ 11:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Assadkhanskt (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope, commons is not a photo album
- File:Assad Khan 1.jpg
- File:Assad Khan 2.jpg
- File:Assad Khan work.jpg
- File:Assad Khan.jpg
- File:Assad Khan 3.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
copyrighted material Triplecaña (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
copyrighted material Triplecaña (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: selfie used in deleted autobio page en:Saad Suhail JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope; photo of non-notable individual cropped from a Snapchat screenshot IagoQnsi (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:17, 17 May 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) 14:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It's a screenshot of copyrighted material. --Antigng (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope; some random person's CV IagoQnsi (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Big Al-MuSti (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no educational value. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Selfie of nonnotable person; not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sandipkaleyin1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Unknown spider- I am trying to see if anyone knows what it is or if it's dangerous? 2014-05-11 18-36.jpg
[edit]Unsharp, compressed beyond recoverability, unidentifiable. Mhohner (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:22, 17 May 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) 14:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Private image. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
unused, useless, no encyclopedic value, just a back-cover page F (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Added to 19th C. marbled paper. Has an illustrative use for that. --Fæ (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: as per User:Fae. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No pproof of permissions. Uploader admits in the discription that it's not their work Mlpearc (open channel) 18:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: actually, credit and uploader are the same, part of a series of similar uploads. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Yet another selfie from yet another deleted autobio page en:Adeel Cheema JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
File name is wrong. Needs to be renamed and reuploaded as KevinVMulcahy.jpg. Jester4561 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: renamed to File:Kevin V Mulcahy.jpg and redirect deleted. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere, potential copyvio of work "minecraft". Liance (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Potential copyvio (Face is from stock photo, probably under copyright), out of project scope. Liance (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Does not appear to be uploader's own work, this seems to be the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo-0ytcEXKg Liance (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Not in use anywhere, many of the images used here may be copyrighted, out of project scope. Liance (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Badly photoshopped joke. Liance (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Definitely out of project scope, not in use anywhere, potential copyvio. Liance (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Definitely out of project scope, not in use anywhere, potential copyvio. Liance (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a potential copyvio of work "CS:GO". Liance (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a potential copyvio of work "CS:GO". Liance (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not in use anywhere. Liance (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused map with no explanation of what it actually shows, beyond blue. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: no context to make it educational. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It is too blurred, nothing can be seen Brunei (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused plain text file, and as such out of scope. If relevant plain text files should be integrated directly into the Wikimedia projects as text. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Advertising content, out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is no place to advertise and files should be reasonably useful for an educational purpose. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Advertising content, out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is no place to advertise and files should be reasonably useful for an educational purpose. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DaniloFFloresCarvajal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used.
- File:Danny Flores in Quillota, Chile writing in 2015.jpg
- File:Danny Flores writing as solo artist Danny Flores December 2015 in Chile.jpg
- File:Danny Flores Tonight Concert Series March 7th 2016.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No permission, this is a recent movie. Do not follow (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dhaunyadeewakar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond.
- File:Selfie at sukaura.jpg
- File:Photo at sukaura.jpg
- File:Photo at jyamrung.jpg
- File:River side in tripureshor.jpg
Basvb (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sumansahoo274 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond.
Basvb (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shivdas bhandari (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond.
Basvb (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal logo. This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Advertising content, out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is no place to advertise and files should be reasonably useful for an educational purpose. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Please also consider deleting User:Zeynel Yeşilay the advertisement on the user page Basvb (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
out of scope Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
copied checl from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work of a work of applied art, unknown author & permission A.Savin 11:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
redirect from a name with an obvious error Bahnfrend (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unneeded redirect. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo which is claimed to be own work. Logos with an own work claim and which are unused generally should be deleted per one of the following reasons. The logo is either of a non notable subject or company and could thus be considered out of scope as advertising content. On the other hand: if the logo is of a notable subject, and might thus be in scope, than the own work claim is almost surely incorrect and as such the author and source information are likely false. Incorrect sources mean that essential information is missing. It would be possible, but hard, to fix this information as I do not know the original source. For potential usage of a logo downloading the logo and uploading it with correct information is very easy. Making reuploading when needed easier than finding already uploaded unused logos with incorrect information. Note that I do not make any arguments about whether this logo is above or below the threshold of originality as I believe that this logo should be deleted either way per the reasoning given. If you believe that this logo could be used for an educational purpose (for example in a Wikipedia article) and the attribution information is correct (or has been corrected) please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Also small size and no exif which could point to copyvio Basvb (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jean carlos cunha Almeida (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond.
Basvb (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Jaccadz (serial copyright violator/watermark remover/Flickr+Panoramio grabber)
- File:Davao matina town square.jpg
- File:Davao malagos garden.jpg
- File:Davao eden nature park.jpg
- File:Davao skyline2.jpg
- File:Davao ateneo de davao.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, all images readily found on internet. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohan86gup (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyvios, except for File:Ravela Kishore Babu Min 02.jpg the files have no exif data. On most files the following is stated: ".... I downloaded pictures from google images, which as provided free to download" So a clear indication that the files are not own work but copyvios
- File:Pydikondala-ManikyalaRao Min 003.jpg
- File:KOLLU-RAVINDRA Min 005.jpg
- File:Pydikondala-ManikyalaRao Min 004.jpg
- File:Ravela Kishore Babu Min 02.jpg
- File:SIDDA RAGHAVARAO.jpg
- File:Peetala-Sujatha1.jpg
- File:Prathipati Pullarao Min.jpg
- File:Kamineni HM.jpg
- File:Pullarao.jpg
- File:Paritala.jpg
- File:Narayana ap.png
- File:Devineni uma 1875.jpg
- File:Ayyanna patrudu.jpg
- File:Achennaidu New.jpg
- File:Kimidi.jpg
- File:13VZ GANTA VJF 1946653g.jpg
- File:Palle Raghunath Reddy 1306.jpg
- File:B Gopala Krishna Reddy.jpg
- File:Gopala Krishna Reddy B.jpg
- File:Yanamula Rama Krishnudu.jpg
- File:Nimmakayala-Chinna-Rajappa.-DCM.jpg
- File:KE Krishnamurthy DCM.jpg
- File:CBN CM AP.jpg
- File:Devineni.jpg
- File:21VZRAJ PAGE 3 AYY 1337341g.jpg
- File:02-1441176087-achennaidu.jpg
- File:04vzvcrhi3 4 rt VJ 2609339e.jpg
- File:Kimidi minister.jpg
- File:12VZ GANTA VJF 2240721e.jpg
- File:Palleraghunatha.png
- File:Imageedit 3 2266227114.jpg
- File:Imageedit 2 4470354199.jpg
- File:Gopalakrishna-Reddy-Bojjala.jpg
- File:Yenamula.jpg
- File:Nimmakayala.jpg
- File:KE Krishnamurthy.jpg
- File:NCBN-Still-5.jpg
Basvb (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abdelhay benmoussa (talk · contribs)
[edit]One unused personal image and two likely copyvios.
Basvb (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF
Gunnex (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, found on internet. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Koilari Jaunpur (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond.
- File:Dr singh.jpg
- File:Sanjay S.JPG
- File:SanjayK Singh.jpg
- File:SanjaySingh.jpg
- File:Raghubanshi.JPG
- File:Singh sanjay.JPG
- File:SK Singh Imphal.JPG
- File:Raghubanshi Sanjay Singh.JPG
- File:Sanjay Singh Raghubanshi.JPG
- File:Singh Sanjay Kumar.JPG
- File:SK Singh.JPG
- File:Sanjay Kumar.JPG
- File:Singh SK.JPG
- File:Dr. S K Singh.JPG
- File:Dr.Sanjay Singh.JPG
- File:Sanjay Kumar Singh.JPG
Basvb (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Very blurry image with generic categories, currently not useful and thus not in scope, maybe under the category of the effect presented? Basvb (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Very blurry image with generic categories, currently not useful and thus not in scope, maybe under the category of the effect presented? Basvb (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by P199: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Koilari Jaunpur
Previously published at http://www.sp-langenthal.ch/ without a free license. Also not clear that the uploader (using the name of the subject) is the photographer, for the own work claim. --ghouston (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
source http://www.eldiario.es/canariasahora/cultura/Fallece-Amparo-Munoz-Miss-Universo_0_131587316.html doesn't say it's free. Esprit Fugace (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I doubt this is own work: it looks like a screenshot of a video. BrightRaven (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I doubt this is own work: it looks like a screenshot of a video. BrightRaven (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Unsharp, small, unidentifiable Mhohner (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Unsharp, small, unidentifiable Mhohner (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Unsharp, small, unidentifiable Mhohner (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It's from here, this file 2003:4D:2C35:7013:BC5E:761D:C261:801C 17:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until the permission at OTRS is processed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It's from here, this file 2003:4D:2C35:7013:BC5E:761D:C261:801C 17:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until the permission at OTRS is processed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It's from here, this file 2003:4D:2C35:7013:BC5E:761D:C261:801C 17:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep until the permission at OTRS is processed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: duplicate file, redirection kept. --Wdwd (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jessewaugh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Thirty-seven user images, mostly of a face. Many are shot at such a distance as to be obviously not selfies, yet all are claimed as own work. The sizes are highly variable, the cameras also range from phones to point-and-shoots. This looks more like an effort at self-promotion or promotion than anything educational. None of these images are in use on the Jesse Waugh page.
- File:JESSE-WAUGH-NOSTELL-PRIORY.JPG
- File:JESSE-WAUGH-UENO.JPG
- File:JESSE-WAUGH-CRYSTALS-FLORENCE.JPG
- File:JESSE-WAUGH-BATH.JPG
- File:JESSE-WAUGH-34TH STREET.JPG
- File:Jesse Waugh Leaving Los Angeles.jpeg
- File:Jesse-Waugh-TT.jpg
- File:Jesse-Waugh-Saqqara.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh-Pyramid.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh-NYC.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh-Parthenon.JPG
- File:JESSE-WAUGH-HIDDEN-HAND.jpg
- File:Jesse-Waugh-Autopia.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh-MET.JPG
- File:JESSE-WAUGH-Manchester.jpg
- File:JESSE-WAUGH-Light-Portrait.jpg
- File:Jesse-Waugh-Grand-Bazaar-Istanbul.jpg
- File:Jesse-Waugh-Berky.jpg
- File:Jesse-Waugh-East-L.A.jpg
- File:Jesse-Waugh-Amazon.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh-ABC-NYC.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh Tatton-Park.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh Stonehenge.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh GODS.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh Muir Woods.jpg
- File:JESSE WAUGH-FENP-Los-Angeles.jpg
- File:Jesse-Waugh God.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh Free-Exhibition.jpg
- File:Jesse Waugh Mexico.jpg
- File:Jesse-Waugh Callanish.JPG
- File:Jesse-Waugh Autopia-Long.JPG
- File:Jesse Waugh Pyramid close up.PNG
- File:Jesse Waugh San Francisco.jpg
- File:Jesse Waugh Bristol.jpg
- File:Jesse Waugh Hollywood.jpg
- File:Jesse-Robert-Waugh.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. OTRS permission is needed from the photographer(s) of the images when proven that all these images have an educational purpose. --★ Poké95 23:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
+2 more:
★ Poké95 23:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:JESSE-WAUGH-UENO.JPG is clearly a self-portrait Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whether it is a self-portrait or not, it still should be deleted because I think the user is using Commons for self-promotion. ★ Poké95 23:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't necessarily see it as intentional self promotion... more like someone new to Commons who thinks they're helping by contributing free images. As for images taken from a distance, tripods and timers are common equipment employed by photographers, so it's debatable they were taken by others. A bunch of selfies probably aren't needed, but deleting everything is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, not to mention pretty cruel. There's nothing particularly harmful here, unlike the vast amount of low quality pornography here. If there are copyright concerns with specific images, those should be addressed individually. EDIT: Also, File:Jesse-Waugh Muir Woods.jpg is in use. The Master (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment We have no way of knowing if this uploader is indeed Jesse Waugh, and COM:OTRS from Mr. Waugh (and all other photographers) would be needed in order to retain the images. We have no way to know if the image which is in use is a COM:COPYVIO or not. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)- Comment I am Jesse Waugh / Jessewaugh. I have satisfactorily demonstrated copyright to Davod Solaris. Please let me know how I should demonstrate my identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessewaugh (talk • contribs)
- @Jessewaugh: Please send an email to the OTRS. But as I and Ellin Beltz said above, it is unlikely that all of these images you uploaded will be kept, since we think you are using Commons for self-promotion. How can you use all of these images in one Wikipedia article? ★ Poké95 06:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for your reply Pokefan95|. Okay that's fine but can you please keep the four photos that have been cleared or are in use: File:JESSE-WAUGH-UENO.JPG (self-portrait), File:JESSE_WAUGH.jpg (copyright cleared), File:Jesse-Waugh Muir Woods.jpg (in use), and File:Jesse-Robert-Waugh.jpg? Thanks for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessewaugh (talk • contribs)
- Comment Only File:Jesse-Waugh Muir Woods.jpg is in use on the en:wiki page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: All deleted, some may be considered for undeletion once COM:OTRS permission is needed. ~riley (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation: "This Image is the property of MingleMediaTV. If found please return to jd@minglemediatv.com, use without permission is forbidden according to your local lawmakers rules on using someone else's stuff without asking." Castillo blanco (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why? I asked a valid permit to Mingle Media TV, which changed license on Flickr after my request --Bart ryker (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept, I reviewed the license once again. Mingle Media published the file under free license in Flickr. Taivo (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe that this logo is too complex (the details on the lettering) to be considered to be below the Threshold of originality and as such should be deleted. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, fonts are not copyrightable in USA. Look en:Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts and typefaces. Here all A-s and R-s in words "LARA CROFT" have identical shape, but not identical color, so it is not exact font: every letter is a bit different. I agree, that it surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Probably not a free image Shev123 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This is screenshot from football manager game! Sakhalinio (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
All images can also be found on the internet prior to upload. Either delete as copyright violations or in need of permission from copyright owners.
- File:The Backyard.jpg
- File:Ming Court.jpg
- File:The Place (1).jpg
- File:Alibi - Wine Dine Be Social.jpg
- File:Cordis, Hong Kong lobby.jpg
- File:Club Lounge Bar Area, Level 36.jpg
- File:Cordis, Hong Kong Studio Room.jpg
Takeaway (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
SVG available as File:GHS-pictogram-silhouette.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
SVG available as File:GHS-pictogram-exclam.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
SVG available as File:GHS-pictogram-flamme.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Luzhniki Olympic Complex
[edit]Modern sculptures, no FoP for sculptures in Russia
- File:Opfer-Gedenkstätte im Luschniki-Stadion.jpg
- File:Памятник Стрельцову.JPG
- File:Памятник УЕФА 2008.JPG
Stolbovsky (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Exhib Femme Amatrice Nue Cochonne Marie Pascale 45 Ans Salope Bourgeoise De Lille nue sous sa mini robe 01.jpg
[edit]Bad test ... I didn't want to load this photo. Thanks for deleting Nicyhensen (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Exhib_Femme_Amatrice_Nue_Cochonne_Marie_Pascale_45_Ans_Salope_Bourgeoise_De_Lille_nue_sous_sa_mini_robe_01.jpg
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, FBMD in the metadata+no cropped version on the web. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Fr-minecraft-358I-lb-photo-realism-minecraft-texture-photo-realism-minecraft-minecraft-images-wallpaper-of-minecraft-minecraft-hd-wallpaper-minecraft-character-pixel-game-2048x1152.jpg
[edit]Appears to be a copyvio, doesn't appear to be author's original work Liance (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Does not appear to be author's own work. potential copyvio. Also potentially out of project scope. Liance (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a potential copyright of work "minecraft". Liance (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyright violation, not in use anywhere and out of project scope. Liance (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative (likely tv-screengrab + photoshop) and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Also has no EXIF data to prove that the uploader is the photographer of the images. The resolution is low too.
★ Poké95 03:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Both images are just street scenes, any special architectural elements are DM. EXIF data is not a must (both images not found elsewhere on the internet), and resolution is more than acceptable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, since there is no EXIF data to prove that the uploader is the copyright holder of the image, and the resolution is low. ★ Poké95 03:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
PNG version already exists: File:Logo Vive Intensamente .png ★ Poké95 03:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope, Commons is not a private photo album. User just did nothing in Wikipedia except editing only their userpage. ★ Poké95 03:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
OTRS needed; the source has no evidence that the photo is in public domain Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
"not needed" Simon04 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I created the template as a convenient shorthand for Template:BadJPEG and didn't notice when it got vandalized last year. May I return the redirect while the page is considered for deletion? Ain92 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Restored the redirect. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
violation of personality rights (woman & driver) Magnus (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Edit - Keep if the license plate is blurred. If that concern is addressed, I don't think theres enough identifiability for personality rights violation to be valid. ~riley (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Does Italy require permission for taking photos of identifiable people? No. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Does Wikimedia need images, which only purpose is to expose people? No. --Magnus (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: This is clearly not in line with Directive 95/46/EC. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Work of an artist who died in 1981 Shev123 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:45, 30 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? Taivo (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Sole contribution by user. Unlikely to be own work - no exif info Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a potential copyvio of work "minecraft," out of project scope. Liance (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Probably not user's own work, potential copyvio as it includes the brand "minecraft"'s logo which appears to be copyrighted. Liance (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be uploader's own work, seems to be logo of work "agar.io". Liance (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a potential copyvio of work "agar.io". Liance (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Image of small size with no exif data which makes me suspect that this image was copied from elsewhere. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional (derivative clipping from 1991) and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Own work claim for 1943 file unlikely. Could be PD-old. Basvb (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Might be PD, but should be proven. Basvb (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative (tv screengrab) and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative (background) and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Not uploaded by copyright holder, see http://image.gsshop.com/image/19/20/19205932_L1.jpg Blue Elf (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Apparently copied from http://www.meloyfk.no/Meloy-FK.html?actions=304:content&idc=91 Blue Elf (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joskidoedel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Series of circa 1940s images claimed to be own work. Need correct PD-licensing if applicable. Who is the original photographer?
- File:Bert 02.jpg
- File:Bert 01.jpg
- File:Bert Hermans als loper.jpg
- File:1939+- Bert Hermans.jpg
- File:1939+- uw vriend Bert a.jpg
Basvb (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional/old and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This looks like it's a screenshot from Bananasaurus Rex's livestream, which would mean the uploader is not the copyright holder and this is copyright infringement. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
found elsewhere on the web (tineye search), unlikely to be own work. Esprit Fugace (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Su Majestad la Reina Letizia. Día Mundial de la Cruz Roja y de la Media Luna Roja. Palacio de Congresos de Albacete 2.jpg
[edit]Error al subir el archivo.
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
derivated work, contains copyrighted material (foto on the wall, movie poster), see cropped version instead Queryzo (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
A logo of a company upload from a advert user Qinyongr -{「給我留言 」「歡迎加入 #cvn-zh-scan」}- 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment，maybe copyvio--Qinyongr -{「給我留言 」「歡迎加入 #cvn-zh-scan」}- 13:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The logo may include unfree fonts, and there is a figure in the image. --Techyan（Talk） 08:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional/old and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This image is hi-res, but the same photo appeared here back in 2006. An OTRS ticket is required. Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Also Duplicate of file:Pepijn Lanen © Nick Helderman.jpg Basvb (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramatuelle1980 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal image(s). This image is considered out of scope as it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploading a small number of images for use on your user pages is allowed (if your contributions stretch further than just creating a user page). If you feel that this image was incorrectly nominated please respond.
Basvb (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bibliothecaire (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyright violations.
- File:Un crocodile dans un lac sacré du Mont Passot.jpg - Video screengrab? Has a watermark
- File:Carte-nosy-be-gm.jpg - Map from unidentified source, unlikely own work as it is quite complex.
- File:Nosy Be vue d'un boutre.jpg - Can be found on other websites (in the slideshow)
- File:Nosy-Be-madagascar.jpg - Another watermark
- File:Logo-Nosy-Be.png - A logo, could be that this is allowed, however likely not fully own work.
Basvb (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
copied check from here Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I have created Marita Liulia's wikipedia page at her request, as her employee.
So I have Liulia's official permission to use the image on her wikipedia page: she herself wanted the images on her wikipedia page.
With Wikipedia Commons, it is difficult to use it to upload images to a person's wikipedia page. I have never before edited wikipedia before, but this page with its photos has been created at Marita Liulia's personal request. You may contact herself if you wish at marita<at>maritaliulia -dot- com
If you know any other better ways to add images to a person's wikipedia page than Wikipedia Commons, please let me know how to do it.
But please do not remove anything without discussing the image matter with me first. Thank you very much! Gurneys
- Dear Gurneys, thank you very much for your reaction. Could you send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with evidence of the permission? See Commons:OTRS for an explanation and feel free to ask any further questions. The best place for the images is here, don't worry too much about the difficulties with editing. The only thing we have to do is verify that there is permission. Basvb (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Gurneys, Thank you very much for sending in the permissions. For your other uploads similar issues arise, maybe you could send in the permission for those as well (or a general permission for files from Marita Liulia uploaded using your account). Basvb (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Permission confirmed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Dublette zu https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tosca_8074-michelides.jpg Gedenksteine (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 21:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Small b&w image, no metadata, unlikely to be own work. Sealle (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- {
{vk}} made to {{Unknown}}, it is probably an very old photo. ↔ User: Perhelion 13:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC) - @Perhelion: Das Musikinstrumenten-Museum in St. Petersburg wurde 1990 eröffnet. --217.65.221.174 13:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Gut, ohne das Gegenteil belegen zu können, hast du wohl Recht. ↔ User: Perhelion 14:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Uploader's note: I am the uploader of this image (here on Commons), but not its author. In fact, I just transferred this image on Commons, and Its original uploader was user Lute88, on English Wikipedia. Dunno why didn't changed {{Own}} to {{Own work by original uploader}}; done now. I'll notify Lute88 about this DR. --XXN, 13:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be found previously published on several places (e.g. http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CB%5CA%5CBandura.htm). Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Greenlynx0057 (talk · contribs)
[edit]They are derivative works of copyrighted paintings by Pyotr Anurin (1914-1992) that has been uploaded without copyright holders' permission.
- File:Ленинград. Дворцовая площадь..jpg
- File:Прилуки. Вологда .jpg
- File:Переславль Залесский. Трапезная.jpg
- File:Иван-Чай.jpg
- File:Весна. Ива цветет. .jpg
Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Размещение данных фотографий никаким образом не затрагивает авторские права, так как правоприемником являюсь я, внук художника. Greenlynx0057 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyright holders must send permission via OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Считаю удаление этих работ БРЕДОМ и оскорблением памяти художника. Все требования по копирайту были полностью выполнены в соответствии с рекомендациями. Жаль, что в википедии правят бал малообразованные и недалекие люди!!!
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Dubious source info. Uploader is "Magicalcaerta". "Author" is the subject, Attie van Wyk. No evidence uploader is Wyk, plus how did Wyk take his own picture? Possible, but dubious. If it were own work there ought to be meaningful EXIF. BethNaught (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify copyright, see source/author, and also EXIF data missing, Roland zh (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. The person in the image is said to be the author and source as well. Compare this photo. ErikvanB (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow. The artist himself gave permission to post this photo. How can that not suffice? What kind of evidence is needed... there was no file upload or anything else to supply the evidence (unless i missed it) --Badlapje (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The photographer is more likely to be the copyright holder. But whoever holds the copyright, the holder should give official permission (by e-mail). - ErikvanB (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyvio of work "minecraft". Liance (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Its a Screen Shot of My Fan made Minecraft on Scratch. I don't understand why its listed for deletion. If you don't believe me, here's the link - https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/87710729/ . And the copyright logo is there because I created the project and put that there so Its not stealing. I made this project. It's just a picture of it. jonesrmj (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of Minecraft, which is a copyrighted software. --★ Poké95 23:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- But it's on scratch. Minecraft is indeed copyright, but this miecraft shown is completely different. There are millions of fan made minecrafts that aren't copyright. I made this project, All What I borrowed was the logo. So this makes it not copyright. Jonesrmj (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)jonesrmj
- @Jonesrmj: Even it is made on scratch, it is still based on Minecraft, and since it is based on Minecraft, it is a derivative work of copyrighted software. See COM:DW. ★ Poké95 12:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I still don't really understand. If you created the project, than how come you can't have a screenshot of your own project? Jonesrmj (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)jonesrmj
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Too blurred Brunei (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- also file:King salman.jpg
DrKay (talk · contribs) disputed the claim, that it is human. In his/her opinion it is wax sculpture. But modern sculptures are protected with copyright. Maybe there is no freedom of panorama in source country. Creation country is needed to determine copyright status of the photo. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Those images are not wax sculpture, So FOB is not the case right here. I respect his/her opinion but I'm against this deleting request. --Ziad (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Since there is no information of the circumstances where this photo was taken in 2010 and since there are manyphotos showing King Salman and his spot on the right cheek and bags under the eyes, these photos are deleted. Thuresson (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This is one of the images that was lost due to a software bug in September 2008. The file currently uploaded here is a low resolution copy which would ordinarily be deleted as useless; I think it is safe to say that if the original image hasn't been recovered in 7 years, it will never be found again, so I think the advice not to delete such files can safely be disregarded.
It is not used anywhere on any wiki; has no external source from which it can be reuploaded; and is confusing to users who find a "ghost" file when browsing a category. This, that and the other (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, but not newer version, which is used in user talkpage, but only older version. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
No need for this to redirect there. This image is not used and the name "Warning.jpg" is too broad. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Logo does not appear to be licensed under CC-4.0, seems to be a copyright-protected brand logo. Liance (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The logo itself doesn't, but the SVG maybe. Bellow the TOO in Sweden? --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: not below TOO. --Jcb (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Uploader removed source={{Own}} and self-identification from author= promptly after uploading, possibly un-assertng that those are correct. At best (by content and usage) it's just some selfie, so not COM:EDUSE anyway DMacks (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama for modern sculptures in Russia. Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
L'immagine si riferisce a M81. Caricata per errore. Mylkomeda (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason for deletion. Please request a change of filename by using the {{Rename}} template. Green Giant (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
as below Qinyongr -{「給我留言 」「歡迎加入 #cvn-zh-scan」}- 10:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Possible DW issues, per nomination... but also EXIF credits a likely third party. Probable copyright violation. --Storkk (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Erreur sur l'artiste, il ne s'agit pas de Yourassof. Ycor87 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination... if uploader is no longer sure of author, we cannot be sure of PD status. --Storkk (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
File was {{PD-USGov-EPA}} with a non working link to EPA site. IP changed it to point to a 2000 website. Unless we have some proof that this is EPA photo we need to delete Jarekt (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This my photo taken in 1996 on slide film for a school project. It is not an EPA image.
- I found it here, as displayed in the history of the file on commons, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/30years/timeline/#, and select 1978 as indicated when I first uploaded the file. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- IA shows "image not available" from 2013 https://web.archive.org/web/20131228133215/http://www.epa.gov/superfund/30years/timeline/ no reason to doubt it was uploaded from there. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Codc as no permission:
- Scan without documented source. EXIF-data HP oj5600 is a scanner/printer-unit --Codc (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
See also history for arguments. Leyo 13:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Promotional Laber□T 19:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep COM:INUSE in mswiki. --★ Poké95 03:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Updated Picture on Wiki Page. Not professional looking. Jester4561 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Image is from off-wiki site without evidence of the claimed CC license. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- This (and by extension many of Jerry Dougherty's other images uploaded by me and others) are stuck in a version of the "Flickr license problem" (i.e. how was it licensed at the time of download). Fotki (the third party site) has redesigned its website, and it no longer displays the user's license terms. At the time I uploaded this image, the page displayed an icon for the given CC license (as did all of his images). I've emailed Fotki support about this, but I'm not a user there myself and I don't know the photographer. Magic♪piano 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a difficult one then. You're obviously a trustworthy user and I don't doubt what you say (I didn't realize till after I started the deletion nom that you were the uploader) but for posterity it'd be best to find some way of proving this beyond doubt. Any way to get in contact with the original photographer? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Our friend Archive.org saved evidence that this album, from this photographer, was available under CC-BY 2.5. Jcb (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's a difficult one then. You're obviously a trustworthy user and I don't doubt what you say (I didn't realize till after I started the deletion nom that you were the uploader) but for posterity it'd be best to find some way of proving this beyond doubt. Any way to get in contact with the original photographer? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: see above. --Jcb (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please hold this one, uploader has reacted and has permission (but not send to OTRS). Basvb (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- OTRS sent in (ticket:2016052410009925), but not sufficient enough. See template on the file page. Josve05a (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: for now, leaving it to the OTRS ticket. I have taken over the ticket. Permission apparently came from the wrong person, which was not noticed by previous agent. --Jcb (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please hold this one, uploader has reacted and has permission (but not send to OTRS). Basvb (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- OTRS sent in (ticket:2016052410009925), but not sufficient enough. See template on the file page. Josve05a (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: for now, leaving it to the OTRS ticket. I have taken over the ticket. Permission apparently came from the wrong person, which was not noticed by previous agent. --Jcb (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sterz
[edit]Sterz (talk · contribs) uploaded these photos:
- File:C.V.G. van Oosterzee - S.G. Timmers Verhoeven.jpg
- File:Gibraltar 15 aug 1944 Chris van Oosterzee, Sam Timmers Verhoeven, Rijk, Gijs ten Besten.jpeg
The photos are made in 1940-s, so own work is dubious. Who is real photographer and does he allow to freely publish these photos? Taivo (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
File:De Batavier.png and File:Batavierenstraat Westzijde.jpg look to be Google Streets images (the blurring of faces and other parts of the images). Some other images from the Batavierenstraat are quite old and unlikely to be own work. Given the issues with those initial images I suspect issues with all of the images from the Batavierenstraat, all claimed to be own work and without exif. Given this the final two own work claimed images without exif-data have also been nominated (File:Stèle Cabane des Evadés.jpg and File:Cabane des Evadés.jpg). The 6 final uploads (not nominated) do not have an own work claim and are all from circa 1927-1945, they could be PD-old, but preferably more information should be given and I doubted about nominating those as well. Basvb (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- own work Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- own work Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Found at source without crop
- Requested explicit permission at source. Sterz (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Found at source without crop
- own work Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Found at external source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Deletion agreed. Sterz (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Found at external source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Google street view, deletion agreed; will swap with own work Sterz (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- own work Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Found at external source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Deletion agreed. Sterz (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Found at external source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- 1952 image according to source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Picture is from 1985 according to source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- 1985 image licensed to Rotterdam City Archive.--ErickAgain 07:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Picture is from 1985 according to source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- 1930s-1950s image, just in the range where the age really matters, please provide a source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Sterz (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- 1952 image according to source. --ErickAgain 06:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Sterz (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- 1930s-1950s image, just in the range where the age really matters, please provide a source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- ca. 1960 file according to source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- 1964 image according to Rotterdam City Archive.--ErickAgain 06:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- ca. 1960 file according to source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Google street view, deletion agreed Sterz (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have a hard time pinning this down to a 10 year range but this man doesn't look to be pre 1950s dressed and other elements also support post war era). Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cropped and enhanced version of File:Batavierenhofje.png. 1952 image according to Rotterdam City Archive.--ErickAgain 06:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have a hard time pinning this down to a 10 year range but this man doesn't look to be pre 1950s dressed and other elements also support post war era). Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- own work Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- This google search reveals 2 higher resolution images. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nevertheless own work, what can i do to convince?
- This google search reveals 2 higher resolution images. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- This could be in the public domain due to it's age, looks like a 1900-1940s post card, please provide the source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Sterz (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Sterz: thank you very much for your reply. However we will need sources to be added to images to verify your claims. I went ahead and looked for the images on google (simple search) and found issues with a few of them. Please be honest and don't claim own work on images you did not create. Also for Public Domain the author has to be deceased over 70 years ago (before 1946). Some of the images you claimed to be public domain are more recent. I've added my findings inline for each image. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Basvb: You definitely know more about my collection than I did. My deepest respect for your research.
- This could be in the public domain due to it's age, looks like a 1900-1940s post card, please provide the source. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - none appear to be PD. Own work claims all dubious. --Storkk (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Cabane des Evadés.jpg has been reuploaded after deletion. Sterz, please do not reupload the exact same files once they have been deleted. Basvb (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why not Basvb? Some persons violated my files. I told you it is my own work. Sterz (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redeleted. Files deleted after a discussion (such as these) must not be re-uploaded. Take the matter up at COM:REFUND. However, you lied about numerous files above (File:Stèle Cabane des Evadés.jpg, File:Batavierenstraat Oostzijde.jpg, File:Seniorencompex Batavierenstraat.jpg) being own work, so I see no reason to believe you're telling the truth about another file with no EXIF. Storkk (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Big words, calling me a lier. Numerous files you say? File:Batavierenstraat Oostzijde.jpg and File:Seniorencompex Batavierenstraat.jpg are exactly the same. Big deal your addition. I have collected plenty pictures of as well Batavierenstraat as Portet d'Aspet, from others and myself. I like sharing them. And you are calling me a lier. Feeling comfortabel behind your screen and insulting other persons? You're overreacting man....! Sterz (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redeleted. Files deleted after a discussion (such as these) must not be re-uploaded. Take the matter up at COM:REFUND. However, you lied about numerous files above (File:Stèle Cabane des Evadés.jpg, File:Batavierenstraat Oostzijde.jpg, File:Seniorencompex Batavierenstraat.jpg) being own work, so I see no reason to believe you're telling the truth about another file with no EXIF. Storkk (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why not Basvb? Some persons violated my files. I told you it is my own work. Sterz (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
None of the actual authors are identified, none are likely "unknown" in the legal sense. Doubtful actual authors have been dead long enough to be PD, since these all appear to be from after approximately 1930.
- public domain Sterz (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- public domain Sterz (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Storkk (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sterz: Why do you believe these are public domain? Simply asserting that they are doesn't make them so. Storkk (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you could read, you could see that most these people are killed in before 1945. So what is your problem mister Storkk. Also you deleted pictures I made myself. What is the point of this? Sterz (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is not the subject who needs to have died 70 years ago, but the photographer. Storkk (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well I am not yet dead mister Storkk, bust someone who made a picture at the beginning of last century surely is. Very sloppy and disrespectful 16:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are also not the author of any of these files. And no, someone who created a photograph in the 1930s is not particularly likely to have died more than 70 years ago. Storkk (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- No am the author of some other files you disrespectfully deleted today. And I am the person who carefully selected this old pictures, scanned and improved them before you nominated for deletion. Fortunately I did send them also to other sites, who use these pictures on their sites now. Thanks to you, not at Wikipedia anymore. Good job....!!! Sterz (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are also not the author of any of these files. And no, someone who created a photograph in the 1930s is not particularly likely to have died more than 70 years ago. Storkk (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well I am not yet dead mister Storkk, bust someone who made a picture at the beginning of last century surely is. Very sloppy and disrespectful 16:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is not the subject who needs to have died 70 years ago, but the photographer. Storkk (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you could read, you could see that most these people are killed in before 1945. So what is your problem mister Storkk. Also you deleted pictures I made myself. What is the point of this? Sterz (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, most of the photos are surely protected with copyright and maybe even all of them are still copyrighted. As here is no author data, then we do not know, how long the files are copyrighted. No known restore date. Taivo (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Nothing can be seen Brunei (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The file can be used, for example to illustrate how spiders build webs to catch prey, or use their surrounding/grass, description is ok. --Basvb (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm in contact with the uploader on my nlwiki talk page. Basvb (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't get any reactions after the 17th of May, the uploader likely is the owner, likely OTRS is required. Basvb (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This file looks to be a derivative and I doubt whether the copyright holder of the original work has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm in contact with the uploader on my nlwiki talk page. Basvb (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't get any reactions after the 17th of May, the uploader likely is the owner, likely OTRS is required. Basvb (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Three sisters of Zhukovsky family at monument in honor of the earl MS Vorontsov in Odessa 1954.jpg
- File:On board of Soviet ship Karaganda in Venezia port.jpg
- File:Venezia and crewmember of ship Karaganda in 1963.jpg
- File:A haircut and having on board Soviet ship Karaganda in 1961 or 1962.jpg
- File:The crew members of Soviet ship Karaganda play dominoes in 1962 abt.jpg
- File:Soviet steamer Karaganda Between March 1961 and 1963.jpg
- File:Zhukovskiy family in Odessa in 1954 about.jpg
- File:Crew members of ship Nezhin on the Plazza San Marco in Venice.jpg
- File:Two crew members and Syrians on board of Soviet ship Nezhin.jpg
- File:SS Nezhin in period from 1958 to January 1961.jpg
- File:Soviet SS Nezhin between May 1956 and June 1958.jpg
- File:Soviet merchant turbine-runner Leninsky Komsomol 1960 about.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
,_2016_(02).JPG){kind=link}
,_2016_(01).JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(5493789559).jpg){kind=link}
_from_MASH_Olympics.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(14775646854).jpg){kind=link}
,_2016_(03).JPG){kind=link}
_(2436343353).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Ton_ter_Linden.jpg){kind=link}
![353 File:Het boek "Het is zoals het is".jpg](#File:Het_boek_"Het_is_zoals_het_is".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
,_2016_(02).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2016_(02).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_2016_(02).JPG){kind=link}
,_2016_(02).JPG){kind=link}
,_2016_(01).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2016_(01).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_2016_(01).JPG){kind=link}
,_2016_(01).JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(5493789559).jpg){kind=link}
_(5493789559).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(3397805195).jpg){kind=link}
_(5493789559).jpg){kind=link}
_(5493789559).jpg){kind=link}
_dia_2_agosto_2014.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Wikipedia.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Raj_Mahajan.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_from_MASH_Olympics.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_from_MASH_Olympics.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_from_MASH_Olympics.png){kind=link}
_from_MASH_Olympics.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(14775646854).jpg){kind=link}
_(14775646854).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_2016_(03).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_2016_(03).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_2016_(03).JPG){kind=link}
,_2016_(03).JPG){kind=link}
_(2436343353).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2436343353).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2436343353).jpg){kind=link}
_(2436343353).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Ton_ter_Linden.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Ton_ter_Linden.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Ton_ter_Linden.jpg){kind=link}
_Ton_ter_Linden.jpg){kind=link}
![22:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/05/10#c-Basvb-2016-05-10T22:21:00.000Z-File:Het_boek_"Het_is_zoals_het_is".jpg){kind=link}
![19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/05/10#c-Natuur12-2016-05-30T19:17:00.000Z-File:Het_boek_"Het_is_zoals_het_is".jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I am not agree to delete this files.
[edit]Here is mostly photos of photos in my collection due to this is photos maden by my father who worked on this ship. Mostly all, exept last one, this photos are my privat photos and it is their first publishing.
I see that EugeneZelenko is Russian and I am Ukranian. Can be it is reply why he want delete all my files from English Wikipedia.
Грищук ЮН (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- KeepГрищук ЮН, If the photos are in your collection is not relevant for the purpose of the copyrights. The photographs taken by your father can use {{PD-heir}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}} or one of the licenses from Category:License tags for transferred copyright; however you have to place your father's name as the author not your own. Otherwise they look fine to me. Also statements like "EugeneZelenko is Russian and I am Ukranian" go against Assume good faith principle of Wikipedia. Please refrain yourself from making such statements in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Грищук ЮН ajusted description of all photos already.Грищук ЮН (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you only heir of your father? If so, please confirm via Commons:OTRS. If there are other relatives they should permit license too. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- All fathers photos given to me. If depends Zhukonsky family, alive only my mother, all other died allready. It is means other relatives on that photos died.Грищук ЮН (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding other files which are mentioned in other list to delete or to receive lisence (I mean tourist's books, to see [[Toyvo Antikaynen {ship, 1970}]]). Mostly If i filed the first page and the page or pages wich have the issue date and name of place (not full book). If I have a book and want to attach to the text of any article this book cover page and page with the edition date, is it prohibited the file with the book cover page and the page of edition date?Грищук ЮН (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also I am the heir to my father's surname. I had choise to take grandfathers name Zhukovsky but it was dangerouse in 1970s. Any way I can change family to grandfather's family.Грищук ЮН (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now I put in Wikipedia one more file: the book,s cover and pages with the edition date (to see attachment). Is it prohibited?
It is allready posted in the Wikipedia article Warren Hinckle. Fuul description - to see inside file. Грищук ЮН (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have some verses (folklor and that have author also) from the ship Metallurg Anosov. In Odessa city we have Literatury museum. Also was hte Merchant Fleet museaum but in previous centuri it was in fire and still not working. I wanted to present some photos to Literature museum and verses to make one exhibition only about seamens verses, some interesting stories, household and families problems as the seamen families it was separated citizens of the Odessa city. But, as I understood, they are afraid and sent me to Odessa Archive. From Odessa Archive documents, photos can be replace in Moscow easy, they will not care and situation in Odessa is double. Allready was stollen on picture from the museum and like police back but was talking that they back not original. E.t.c. And Archive has problem and I am not sure in Archive. It is my private. I will glad to contact with any journalist, is better from U.S.A., to give his copies of the photos. Why? Allready part of my privat Archive was taken out from my flat when I was in the voyage. And no any traces. Can be with journalist together we will see better which photo has good story and situation.Грищук ЮН (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Verses I was reading for one girl in Literatury Museus. She smile due to humor, but she sent me to the Archive or to the Marine museum. But I not believe that photos will be stolen from the museum. About SS Nezhin I want to clearify situation also. Last weeks was serial movie on TV about Margarita Nazarova. I became more belive that was any communication. Can i not she on the photo but the photo was maden to refresh periodicaly memory about it. In movie present one man Mikhail without one leg. And my grandmother's nephew, also Mikhail and without one leg, completed radio-technical Institute. All together were living in one yard on the Kartomyshevskaya street, Odessa. He died allready. I have his photo but it is not posted. On the photo allitle vissible that his leg is not normally in trousers. And some mane dates, year, month have in my life before in 1960s amd beginning of 1970s have originally match to the husband of the Margarita Nazarova. About one more movie Pirates in XX centure - here every seamen sure that the name of this ship was taken for the movie. But it was maden for me and can be for somebody more.Грищук ЮН (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no sources which could prove that this flag has been the PKK flag. According to sourced of the PKK flag, this flag wasn't used before. Also, it looks like this picture has been just brought directly from its sources and there is no proof that its licence would allow it to be used here. Clearly copyright violation and falsified descriptions. Ferakp (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Then just take a look at the Website of the Organisation http://www.hezenparastin.com/ger/news/news_23.html Koenraad (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Just text, a star, and an illustration of the Communism emblem, too simple to be considered copyvio. And please don't talk about fictional flags, there is already concensus about them. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
According to the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution the Flag was used [1] Koenraad (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Koenraad's first source is official website of the PKK's main group HPG. This flag and the flag of the source are totally different. If you check the star of this flag, the text style and size, you will realize that it's totally different than the hezenparastin flag. The description of this file (flag) is totally wrong, this is not the PKK's flag and it should be immediately changed. Even Google is using this flag, as it thinks that it is the current PKK flag. Also, Koenraad source confirm that this flag was not the PKK flag, so wrong description and wrong flag. We don't even know where it is brought from and no details have been given about its license. I smell copyright violation. Ferakp (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use in several Wikipedia articles. --Jcb (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No confidence that this 'on set' image is own work of uploader who has "no longer active" tag on their user page, but just uploaded this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Omni Flames (talk · contribs)
[edit]Internet culls & COM:COPYVIOs. No own work here, ads and family photos plus others.
- File:1978 US open Cup.jpg
- File:1971 Rupp Roadster 2 Ad.jpg
- File:1964 Shell Car Rally Congratulatory Ad.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Copyvio according to what? The U.S. Copyright Law?
- First, these photo and advertsing pictures lack a visible copyright notice:
- File:1971 Rupp Roadster 2 Ad.jpg was already tagged properly with {{PD-US-No notice}} at the moment of uploading
- For File:1964 Shell Car Rally Congratulatory Ad.jpg, I corrected the license to {{PD-US-No notice}}
- And with File:1978 US open Cup.jpg could apply {{PD-US-1978-89}}, due it lacks of a copyright notice, and is very unlikely to be registered before 1983.
- Unless you provide proof of a copyright notice or a registration in the U.S. Copyright Office, Internet culls and No own work is a very weak reason for deletion for photos and advertsing published in the U.S. before 1989 and 1978 respectively, and a baseless DR is a totally innapropiate way to "fix" the licensing for worosk already in the Public domain in the United States. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as per Amitie 10g. The images are correctly tagged and aren't copyvios. Omni Flames (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The license cited reads "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. " The images which are dated 1964 and 1971 are not covered by that date range and do not identify where they were published. One says that it wasn't published. The other image, dated 1978 shows no publication data. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- In which way was the 1978 photo published? Title and author please. Thuresson (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Omni Flames: please give the publication details for the advertisements - the 1964 one in particular may be from the Philippines. Also, were these from magazines? Which ones? Regarding the family photograph, who was the original photographer? Storkk (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unsufficient information to determine a valid PD situation. --Jcb (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
This file looks professional and I doubt whether the copyright holder has given permission to release it under a free license. Reasoning as indicated at Precautionary principle is not valid on Wikimedia Commons and we need explicit permission from copyright holders for publishing files under a free license. If you are the copyright holder please contact us via OTRS and indicate that you did so on the deletion request. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Basvb (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please hold this one, uploader has reacted and has permission (but not send to OTRS). Basvb (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- OTRS sent in (ticket:2016052410009658), but not sufficient enough. See template on the file page. Josve05a (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: I came to close this and noticed there is a reply on the OTRS ticket. Could you have another look and let me whether you consider it satisfactory or not? Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I got permission of cc-by-sa 4.0 from a third party, who cc'ed the copyright owner. I just sent an email to thm and asked the owner to confirm the release. Josve05a (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: I came to close this and noticed there is a reply on the OTRS ticket. Could you have another look and let me whether you consider it satisfactory or not? Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- OTRS sent in (ticket:2016052410009658), but not sufficient enough. See template on the file page. Josve05a (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: for now - leaving it to the OTRS procedure. --Jcb (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
