Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/09/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
_new_Video_Song_Poster.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![130 File:Wohnhaus "Lindenhof", Bäckergang 12.jpg](#File:Wohnhaus_"Lindenhof",_Bäckergang_12.jpg){kind=link}
_3.png){kind=link}
_4.png){kind=link}
_5.png){kind=link}
_6.png){kind=link}
_7.png){kind=link}
_8.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_маршалу_Советского_Союза_Г._К._Жукову.jpg){kind=link}
no files Sgsg (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: empty category. --JuTa 10:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
no file Sgsg (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: empty category. --JuTa 10:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
new version is available here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAunde_Jande_Rahi_Puchde_-_Suhag_%28Punjabi_Folksong%29.webm Satdeep Gill (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request - same day upload. --INeverCry 20:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Publicity santhosh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Low-quality personal photos of subject with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --★ Poké95 08:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete COM:ADVERT, blatant self-promotion. --jdx Re: 08:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: self-promo uploads by sockpuppet acct. --INeverCry 19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Publicity santhosh. jdx Re: 09:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: self-promo upload by sockpuppet acct. --INeverCry 19:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Hosamtaha90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]A series of PDF documents (out of COM:SCOPE) which contain embedded images of unknown provenance.
- File:شرح مصور المنتدى.pdf
- File:الدردشة.pdf
- File:وربطه بمدونتك الخاصةflickr انشاء البوم صور على.pdf
- File:انشاء حساب فليكر.pdf
- File:استخدام فليكرفي التعلم والتعلم.pdf
- File:الوسيط التكنولوجي.pdf
- File:ما هو فليكر.pdf
- File:WEBMIX.pdf
- File:ما هو Symbaloo.pdf
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hosamtaha90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]same as above: PDF documents which seem to be out of scope. Some of them contain elements that are maybe copyvio.
- File:مفهوم البريد الإلكتروني.pdf
- File:عزيزي الطالب كيف تستخدم صفحات البداية في تعلمك.pdf
- File:ويب 2.pdf
- File:متصفح الانترنت.pdf
- File:ما هو slideshare.pdf
- File:مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي.pdf
- File:استخدام المنتديات في مجال التعلم.pdf
BrightRaven (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hosamtaha90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
- File:Symbaloo في التعلم.pdf
- File:مفهوم صفحة المواقع المفضلة.pdf
- File:التعامل مع المدونات.pdf
- File:التعديل في المدونة.pdf
- File:التعديل في تصميم المدونة.pdf
- File:انشاء مدونة على Blogger.pdf
- File:المكاسب التعليمية من استخدام المدونات الالكترونية.pdf
- File:الفصول الافتراضية.pdf
- File:مفهوم وتاريخ ظهور المدونات.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hosamtaha90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]As above.
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
File has no source. It does tell us when it was first uploaded to our servers and by which user, but that's not valid source information. We do not know where is came from before it was uploaded to sv.wikipedia, so we do not know whether it was taken from a free or a non-free source. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. The description explicitly states that it was drawn by the uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- As far as visible at Commons, it's unclear whether original uploader stated such a thing. Also it seems very improbable to me. Probably the map has been cut from a non credited larger map, to which the original uploader may have added the text labels. Jcb (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at BIL's upload log, there are plenty of such statements by the uploader for other files: "Användare:BIL har ritat den", "Hemmagjord av Användare:BIL", "har ritats av Användare:BIL", "Den har ritats av Användare:BIL med ritverktyg Microsoft Word och Pair Shop Pro" etc., so just because it doesn't happen to be in the upload edit summary for this particular file, I see no reason to assume that User:Nicke L just made that statement up. (Do we need to get Swedish Wikipedia administrators to look at it?) I also don't see a reason to believe that BIL lied about it based on pure speculation. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't say he lied, I just do not believe that he is also the author of the base map. Many uploaders are completely unfamiliar with copyright regulations. I am prepared to AGF, but still give it 99,9% that the underlying map comes from somewhere else. That's more than enough to delete per PCP. I really don't understand why you are defending a file with an obvious copyright issue. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I just don't think it's that obvious. Not that I'm here to critique the uploader's drawing skills, but to me, given how uneven the widths and angles of the roads are, this does not look like a crop from some professional map, and it's consistent with the uploader's other works. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I made some road drawings several years ago, in order to illustrate some road articles on Swedish Wikipedia. I drew them on my own by freehand, not screen shots from commercial maps, although such maps have been used as comparison. --BIL (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- If that is not legal, I wonder how Open Street Map is created. Do people do their own field measurements or have own satellites or airplanes to get information to base the maps on?--BIL (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actally when reading about OpenStreetMap, it appears that it is created by own ground survey by foot which enables them to create world wide maps. I didn't do that. The question is how much someone is allowed to look at a map when making a new map. If not at all, then all my old maps can be deleted.--BIL (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is covered by Commons:Derivative works#Maps. Basically, facts such as distance measurements and geographic borders are not copyrightable, while selection of which details to include, where to place labels and how to visually represent different elements may be copyrightable, insofar as they contain original expression. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am prepared to replace the drawing with a screenshot from OpenStreetMap, under the same name (and thereby gif-format), but CC-licence. OpenStreetMap and Wikimedia Commons appears to allow usage by each other. Is that a good idea?--BIL (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- That would be great! Jcb (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Done--BIL (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! I will close this DR. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Done--BIL (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- That would be great! Jcb (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am prepared to replace the drawing with a screenshot from OpenStreetMap, under the same name (and thereby gif-format), but CC-licence. OpenStreetMap and Wikimedia Commons appears to allow usage by each other. Is that a good idea?--BIL (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is covered by Commons:Derivative works#Maps. Basically, facts such as distance measurements and geographic borders are not copyrightable, while selection of which details to include, where to place labels and how to visually represent different elements may be copyrightable, insofar as they contain original expression. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actally when reading about OpenStreetMap, it appears that it is created by own ground survey by foot which enables them to create world wide maps. I didn't do that. The question is how much someone is allowed to look at a map when making a new map. If not at all, then all my old maps can be deleted.--BIL (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- If that is not legal, I wonder how Open Street Map is created. Do people do their own field measurements or have own satellites or airplanes to get information to base the maps on?--BIL (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I made some road drawings several years ago, in order to illustrate some road articles on Swedish Wikipedia. I drew them on my own by freehand, not screen shots from commercial maps, although such maps have been used as comparison. --BIL (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I just don't think it's that obvious. Not that I'm here to critique the uploader's drawing skills, but to me, given how uneven the widths and angles of the roads are, this does not look like a crop from some professional map, and it's consistent with the uploader's other works. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't say he lied, I just do not believe that he is also the author of the base map. Many uploaders are completely unfamiliar with copyright regulations. I am prepared to AGF, but still give it 99,9% that the underlying map comes from somewhere else. That's more than enough to delete per PCP. I really don't understand why you are defending a file with an obvious copyright issue. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at BIL's upload log, there are plenty of such statements by the uploader for other files: "Användare:BIL har ritat den", "Hemmagjord av Användare:BIL", "har ritats av Användare:BIL", "Den har ritats av Användare:BIL med ritverktyg Microsoft Word och Pair Shop Pro" etc., so just because it doesn't happen to be in the upload edit summary for this particular file, I see no reason to assume that User:Nicke L just made that statement up. (Do we need to get Swedish Wikipedia administrators to look at it?) I also don't see a reason to believe that BIL lied about it based on pure speculation. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- As far as visible at Commons, it's unclear whether original uploader stated such a thing. Also it seems very improbable to me. Probably the map has been cut from a non credited larger map, to which the original uploader may have added the text labels. Jcb (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no remaining issues. --Jcb (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The license ("You can share the comics anywhere you want as long as it’s for non-commercial purposes.") is not compatible with Commons. Sunmist (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment The license of the comic is now CC BY-NC. However, licenses prohibiting commercial use are not accepted on Commons. I have contacted Stropdassen on their talk page about this. Sunmist (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept, Licensing issue resolved. Sunmist (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Salam Symbol (50).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (49).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (048).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (47).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (46).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (45).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (44).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (43).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (42).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (41).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (40).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (39).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (38).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (37).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (36).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (35).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (34).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (32).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (33).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (31).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (30).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (28).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (29).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (27).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (26).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (25).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (24).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (23).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (22).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (21).jpg
.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}
.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}
.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}
Ies (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Salam Symbol (20).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (19).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (17).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (18).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (16).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (15).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (13).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (14).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (12).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (11).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (10).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (9).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (8).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (7).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (4).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (5).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (6).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (3).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (02).jpg
- File:Salam Symbol (1).jpg
.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}
.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}
Ies (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
com:PENIS, enough of this stuff Pippobuono (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
com:PENIS enough of this stuff Pippobuono (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
com:PENIS, enough of this stuff Pippobuono (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
com:PENIS, enough of this stuff Pippobuono (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sujan chudal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Sujan Chudal.jpg
- File:My style.jpg
- File:Chudal family old picture.jpg
- File:Siwani vanji.jpg
- File:Sawg.jpg
- File:Click.jpg
- File:One shoot.jpg
- File:Smothing.jpg
- File:Just pose.jpg
- File:Sujan chudal.jpg
Ies (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shivammahaseth5 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes you are right but i was just testing to upload photo as i am new to wikipedia and also the background photo of my pics show the cultural & traditions temple of our nepal.so i request you to think once again before deletion. And also please could you teach me how to make page with profile picture.i have tried a lot but when i try to keep profile photo then it doesn't accept why?
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shivammahaseth5 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hasdiehasnan2212 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:HH22-6.jpg
- File:HH22-4.jpg
- File:HH22-5.jpg
- File:HH22-3.jpg
- File:HH22-2.jpg
- File:HH22-1.jpg
- File:HH22.jpg
Ies (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aditya Alse (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pranathipranu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nel prro 16 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Nonsense upload, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Existe em melhor resolução. Reorganizador (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no link provided to the 'better version'. --Jcb (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Existe uma versão melhor. Reorganizador (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no link provided to the 'better version'. --Jcb (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shahidrao786 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 23:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image/artwork INeverCry 23:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Existe uma versão melhor. Reorganizador (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no link provided to the 'better version'. --Jcb (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE INeverCry 23:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE INeverCry 23:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, hoax categories, out of project scope. Derivative work of painting and source country is unknown, maybe the photo violates painter's copyright. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
unused personal image, no educational value Denniss (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
unused personal image, no educational value Denniss (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Most likely not own work. See image ID 20040615_PD1568 (RM) with credits to Swiss Air Force and Austria Presseagentur. De728631 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fareed Ismail (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 22:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Are the columns a part of the building or are they an independent artistic installation? In the latter case, freedom of panorama would not apply even if the photograph itself is PD. De728631 (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's no FOP in the USA, so that's a blind alley. These are architectural in my view, as they appear to be exhaust vents for the building. It's quite normal for exhaust vents to be a distance away from the building and in the last 20 years or so, I have noticed many being turned into a feature rather than anonymous boxes. The simple regular layout and colour makes this more a production design rather than a sculpture, so it would be over egging it to call this an installation. However if someone were to point to an article, or reference where there was a named artist specifically for this feature, there may be more of an argument to be made. Keep based on simplicity and this being unlikely to have been ever described as an artwork or installation. --Fæ (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep You're right, there is no true FOP in the US but taking photographs of copyrighted architecture is still permitted. That's why I was wondering about the purpose of these coloured thingies. And I've just found an explanation by the city of Columbus: "The pipes are actually color-coded functional stacks for the building’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system." Problem solved, picture can be kept. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --Jcb (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Geetha akkihebbal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Suresh kumar Thyamagondlu Nagaraj wikismall.jpg
- File:Zero gravity.jpg
- File:Suresh kumar Thyamagondlu Nagaraj.jpg
INeverCry 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
hello
i am unable to understand,do you want me to delete the images?
i have uploaded these images in wikimedia ,so that i can link the same in wikipedia gallery . kindly help
regards
akkihebbal geetha
"these images are not copyright protected" can be used by any one freely
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- File:Horacio Martinez CFC.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez SAC2.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez SAC 6.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez SAC5.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez SAC4.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez SAC 3.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez SAC.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Latina 3.jpg
- File:Grupo Universitario2.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Latina4.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Arezzo8.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Arezzo10.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Arezzo7.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Latina.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Arezzo6.jpg
- File:Coppa Italia Arezzo.jpg
- File:Grupo Universitario Horacio Martinez.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Arezzo5.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Arezzo4.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Arezzo2.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Arezzo3.jpg
- File:Horacio Martinez Arezzo.jpg
INeverCry 23:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lorendenis020 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 23:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
_new_Video_Song_Poster.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_new_Video_Song_Poster.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
per COM:ADVERT INeverCry 23:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
_new_Video_Song_Poster.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
_new_Video_Song_Poster.jpg){kind=link}
LR failed - no longer available at the source under this license. http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/vallentuna/images/erik-haag-451049 (a cropped version) is available and licensed, and should be uploaded to replace this. Reventtalk 23:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
per COM:PACKAGING INeverCry 23:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't use it. 66.190.250.245 21:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason. --jdx Re: 21:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep One of the more meaninless DR I've ever seen. - Fma12 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Bad nom rationale, yes, but if you look at the file, the license is bad. It claims PD 1978, but the description says the logo as given was used only from 2004-13, so it can't be PD 1978, because it didn't exist at that time. MSJapan (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I had uploaded this file as a {{PD-textlogo}} but user 58.188user changed it without further explanations (see edit here). Therefore a simple reversion should be enough to keep the file here, no need of deletion IMO. - Fma12 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- It was changed on the same day. How do you not notice for three years, and how do you upload a "PD image" when it has a registry mark in the upper right corner? I think you simply SVGed a commercial logo, and that's not acceptable. MSJapan (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission, this does not qualify for PD-textlogo. --Jcb (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Possible copyviol: gmaps screenshot Ciaurlec (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
LR failed - © All rights reserved (tillåt nedladdning) Reventtalk 22:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
LR failed - © All rights reserved (tillåt nedladdning) Reventtalk 22:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HeavensStoneZ (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional content, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Top quality Black Jadeite Beads for the Serious Collector, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade 7194.jpg
- File:Top quality Black Jadeite Beads for the Serious Collector, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade 7228.jpg
- File:Grade A, Imperial Translucent Natural Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Earring with small blue sapphires on Silver settings 6000.jpg
- File:9.65 cts. Rare Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Rough Chunk3.jpg
- File:9.65 cts. Rare Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Rough Chunk2.jpg
- File:9.65 cts. Rare Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Rough Chunk.jpg
- File:Chunk Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade 4428.Chunk Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade 5869.jpg
- File:Grade A, Imperial Translucent Natural Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Chunk with 14k Yellow Gold...Extremely Rare!.jpg
- File:The Pricing of Rough Burmese Black Jadeite Jade in 2009 at the Myanmar Auction, 4.6 Kg. Reserve Price 21,000 Euro5.png
- File:The Pricing of Rough Burmese Black Jadeite Jade in 2009 at the Myanmar Auction, 5 .5 Kg. Reserve Price 25,000 Euro4.jpg
- File:The Pricing of Rough Burmese Black Jadeite Jade in 2009 at the Myanmar Auction, 5 Kg. Reserve Price 19,000 Euro2.jpg
- File:The Pricing of Rough Burmese Black Jadeite Jade in 2009 at the Myanmar Auction, 5 Kg. Reserve Price 19,000 Euro3.jpg
- File:2.9 carat Grade A, Imperial Translucent Natural Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade cabochon.jpg
- File:This is a Grade A, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Carving of the Goddess of Mercy Pendant with 18k White Gold,,.jpg
- File:This is a Grade A, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Carving of the Goddess of Mercy Pendant with 18k White Gold,.jpg
- File:This is a Grade A, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Carving of the Goddess of Mercy Pendant with 18k White Gold....jpg
- File:This is a Grade A, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Carving of the Goddess of Mercy Pendant with 18k White Gold...jpg
- File:Grade A, Imperial Translucent Natural Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Chunk with 14k Yellow Gold...Extremely Rare,.jpg
- File:This gorgeous 2.7 carat Grade A, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade cabochon 4.jpg
- File:This gorgeous 2.7 carat Grade A, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade cabochon 3.jpg
- File:This gorgeous 2.7 carat Grade A, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade cabochon 2.jpg
- File:This gorgeous 2.7 carat Grade A, Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade cabochon 1.jpg
- File:Imperial Translucent Natural Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Chunk with 14k Yellow Gold...Extremely Rare5.jpg
- File:Imperial Translucent Natural Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Chunk with 14k Yellow Gold...Extremely Rare3.jpg
- File:Imperial Translucent Natural Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Chunk with 14k Yellow Gold...Extremely Rare2.jpg
- File:Imperial Translucent Natural Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Chunk with 14k Yellow Gold...Extremely Rare.jpg
- File:Rare Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Rough Chunk (Translucent-River Jade)4.jpg
- File:Rare Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Rough Chunk (Translucent-River Jade)3.jpg
- File:Rare Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Rough Chunk (Translucent-River Jade)2.jpg
- File:Rare Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Rough Chunk (Translucent-River Jade)1.jpg
- File:Rare Imperial Translucent Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Rough Chunk (Translucent-River Jade).jpg
- File:Grade A, Imperial Translucent Natural Black Omphacite Jadeite Jade Chunk with 14k Yellow Gold...Extremely Rare.jpg
- File:Rough Burmese Black Jadeite8159255.jpg
- File:Maw Sit Sit handcrafted jewelry very rare from Burma by Heaven's StoneZ 2703.jpg
- File:Rough Black Jadeite Jade from Myanmar.jpg
- File:Rough Black Jadeite Jade from Myanmar1.jpg
- File:Imperial Translucent Black Omphasite Jadeite Jade cabochon 2581.jpg
- File:Imperial Translucent Black Omphasite Jadeite Jade cabochon 2523.jpg
- File:Black Jade Translucent, Natual Jade, Natual Jadeite, Icy Jade, Icy Jadeite,2.jpg
- File:Rough black jadeite.jpg
4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ies (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
low resolution Cornelhac12 (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
No FOP in Greece... All the statues and monuments present on this picture seem to be too recent in order to fall out of copyrights... Glorious 93 (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: de minimis applies. --Jcb (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope material... Glorious 93 (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
low resolution Cornelhac12 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The statue and the whole monument are too recent in order to fall out of copyrights... Glorious 93 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
UK logo; likely copyrightable as a font: see COM:TOO#United Kingdom. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - It was listed at EN FFD (here) where I was told it should be sent here, Sorry to sound like a dick but I'm not going back & fourth transferring this ... Either it fails TOO or it doesn't ... –Davey2010Talk 19:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: Please accept my sincere apologies Davey. I didn't realize it was a UK logo. I only quickly looked at the image not at the rest of the information. That does change things a little and I'm sorry that I missed it. While it is PD-textlogo in the US and therefore can be uploaded to enwiki and used freely there it is probably not PD-textlogo globally which is what Commons requires. We even had to create a special template on enwiki (en:template:PD-ineligible-USonly) to deal with situations like this. Again I am sorry, and you don't have to do anything else. The image is still uploaded to enwiki and I will fix everything there. --Majora (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Okie dokie no worries, We all make mistakes, In that case Delete the image as it's still at EN. –Davey2010Talk 13:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Le fichier suggère, par son titre et les élements (Pays basque, Bretagne, Flandre etc.) que la France est un empire colonial, ce qui est contraire à la réalité. POV manifeste. Pitthée (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
ːFrench Polynesia and New Caledonia are on the UN List of territories to de-colonize. For the rest, the map has its meaning for the Occitan-language community. If the image title is an issue, why not just rename it? --Jfblanc (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Je n'ai pas parlé de ces territoires. L’imprécision du fichier, tant graphique (au niveau de la métropole) que factuelle (les Flandres, la Catalogne, le Pays Basque ne sont que partiellement en France ...) suffit à rendre ce fichier impropre, inutilisable et donc à justifier sa suppression. Mais il y a plus grave. Qu'est-ce qui justifie, d'un point de vue encyclopédique, d'inclure, aux côtés des départements et territoires d'outre-mer, la Bretagne, l'Alsace, etc. ? Rien sinon l'unique utilisation du fichier, qui se trouve sur l'article França, pour illustrer l’ "empire colonial français en 2015" (sic). C'est manifestement une grave distorsion de la réalité. C'est pourquoi je requiers sa suppression et non simplement son renommage. --Pitthée (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
ːːPlease refer to common definitions of colonialismː impose an alien culture (see Rocard's quote about the destruction of the Occitan culture by France), draw artificial boundaries (see the newest "region" name Occitanie far from matching Occitania actual boundaries), grab taxes and invest them in the Metropolis region, ...or check Gilles Servat's song "Les colonies". Anyway, there is no rationale here to request for deletion. --Jfblanc (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Invoquer une citation - fut-elle d'un ancien Premier ministre-, une interprétation personnelle de la politique régionale et territoriale, une chanson etc. ne saurait se substituer à une argumentation véritable. A fortiori en l'absence de tout type de références, analyses etc. Ce n'est pas un hasard si les articles colonialisme en français, occitan et anglais ne parlent nullement du type de "colonialisme" que vous alléguez. Je maintiens donc ma demande de suppression. --Pitthée (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Jcb (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Jcb: Je regrette que vous concluiez cette discussion de façon si laconique sans prendre le temps de répondre aux arguments exprimés. Tout usage n'est pas légitime. Il y a d'autres fichiers qui représentent très bien la France outre-mers compris et qui auraient pu remplacer celui-là. J'ai demandé à ce qu'il soit renommé. --Pitthée (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Missing EXIF, not own work. ✎kovox90 20:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope. The uplaoder claims to be an account attached to the politician. --Taichi (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation (http://www.hoshinoresorts-reit.com/ja_cms/portfolio/detail.0040.html) Banku (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I recall seeing these when I renamed a category but completely forgot to Dr these, Obvious copyvio. –Davey2010Talk 22:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. see EXIF Banku (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Banku (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I recall seeing these when I renamed a category but completely forgot to Dr these, Obvious copyvio. –Davey2010Talk 22:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. see EXIF Banku (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I recall seeing these when I renamed a category but completely forgot to Dr these, Obvious copyvio. –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a photo of an identifiable person without any statement of the person's consent to have the picture taken and published. In a current discussion in German-language Wikipedia, César questions the appropriateness of using it in the article de:Burkini (it's also used as the main image in en:Burkini and in other Wikipedia language versions), especially as the woman doesn't appear to deliberately pose for the photographer and it seems likely that it was taken without her knowledge. Per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, I think we may need to delete this photograph. Though Commons:Country specific consent requirements doesn't mention Egypt where this photo was taken, according to the image description. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Image is in wide use in multiple language Wikipedias. Comment: Whether it should be deleted or not depends on consent laws in Egypt - can someone please research this? What is legal policy on photographing people in public places in Egypt? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because of the lack of the permission. This photo was very obvious taken without the person's permission. This is also a very controversial bath suit. It is a private person and not a model. Without permission the photo has to be deleted. --Micha (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: obviously taken in public space. --Jcb (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a re-nomination because I think that Jcb's given reason for keeping "obviously taken in public space" was not really addressing the concerns of my original deletion request. No one denies that this image was taken in public space, but that was not the point of the DR at all. The point was whether it is allowed to publish this image taken in public space without the depicted person's consent, see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and Commons:Country specific consent requirements. As the requirements of Egypt (where this photo was taken) aren't yet in that list, these would need to be researched. In a discussion following Jcb's decision, Jcb first stated that "in most countries this picture would not need consent from the depicted person". Given the list at Commons:Country specific consent requirements, that's not the case, on the contrary: most countries do require consent. Note: According to that page, if a country needs consent to commercially use a published picture (but not otherwise), "commercial use" is purely {{Personality rights}}, and thus never a reason for deletion, as Jcb pointed out. Greece would be such a case: No consent required for publishing a picture (green), but for commercially using that picture (orange) = keep the picture with {{Personality rights}}. However, in most countries, permission is already needed just to publish an image taken in public space (second column), and this isn't covered by {{Personality rights}} - if the act of publication itself (such as on Commons) needs permission, a "personality rights" template is no substitute for that. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - publication on itself would only be prohibited if there is a law in that country providing such a prohibition. Until now you have not provided any evidence that such a law exist in Egypt, so this should be a keep unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Although Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle ("where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted") refers to copyright, I think it would be wise to apply it to personality rights as well. In my opinion, given the fact that in most countries you can't publish images of people taken in public space without their consent, we have significant doubt here - even if we don't know what Egyptian law has to say on this matter. But of course it would be really great to have information on personality rights in Egypt, so we could add it to Commons:Country specific consent requirements. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- If personality rights are an issue... face can be blurred. Keep the burkini, drop the face... Strakhov (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Although Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle ("where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted") refers to copyright, I think it would be wise to apply it to personality rights as well. In my opinion, given the fact that in most countries you can't publish images of people taken in public space without their consent, we have significant doubt here - even if we don't know what Egyptian law has to say on this matter. But of course it would be really great to have information on personality rights in Egypt, so we could add it to Commons:Country specific consent requirements. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment If this can help : [1] Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that is helpful. At the top of page 163 we find our answer: you only need permission from a subject if the picture is taken in a private place. The subject of this picture is apparently not in such a private place, so this DR will result in a keep. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per link to relevant Egypt law given by Christian Ferrer above. --INeverCry 21:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dom Sanglau (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Personal images with no educational use.
- File:MANIFESTOS.png
- File:GUARDIÕES DA PRAÇA.png
- File:DOMADORES DE MONSTROS.png
- File:O TRIUNFO DA BESTA.jpg
- File:FIEL GUARDIÃO.jpg
- File:COMO ASSIM.jpg
- File:DIANTE DO DRAGÃO.jpg
- File:NO PASSARAN.jpg
- File:EIS A SUA CONTA.jpg
Rodrigolopes (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dom Sanglau (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Personal images with no educational use.
- File:PARTE FRONTALDO MONUMENTO NA PRAÇA DA MATRIZ.jpg
- File:ESTÁTUA DO LADO ESQUERDO DA ESCADARIA EM FRENTE AO MONUMENTO.jpg
- File:LATERAL ESQUERDA DO MONUMENTO NA PRAÇA DA MATRIZ.jpg
- File:MONUMENTO EM FRENTE A IGREJA DA MATRIZ.jpg
- File:ESTÁTUA NA ESCADARIA EM FRENTE AO MONUMENTO DE PRAÇA DA MATRIZ.jpg
- File:VISTA LATERAL DO MONUMENTO NA PRAÇA DA MATRIZ.jpg
Rodrigolopes (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Was created accidently by me Mouhibayya (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. The image is likely not own work. Uploader has history of copyvios. Jespinos (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Missing exif, same image of Paulo´s twitter Rodrigolopes (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Masterclass21 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Another sock puppet uploading press pictures of James Napier Robertson
- File:The-dark-horse-premiere-0121.jpg
- File:James-napier-robertson-the-dark-horse-0133.jpg
- File:James-napier-robertson-the-dark-horse-0514.jpg
Vera (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Am not a 'sock puppet' am a photographer, took these photo's myself - am happy to send original files of photos to wherever is needed to prove this Masterclass21 (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is at least the 5th instance of pictures of Napier with questionable copyright status ending up on 'Commons. So you say you have nothing to do with the accounts User:Usaproduction, User:Sharkattack3, User:Rangersdanger and User:Sugarloafrd that previously did this, but I'm still highly skeptical that these pictures have a CC-zero license. JNR (himself, representatives or a fan, it doesn't matter which) has had quite the collection of sock puppets in the past, and precaution is necessary. These 3 pictures were taken with 2 different cameras: 2 with a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and one with a Canon EOS 6D. The latter has the picture credited in the EXIF data to Greg Doherty. A photographer that configures one of his devices to incert a credit would likely do so too in all his other cameras, but that isn't the case here. Even though the 3 pictures were taken on the same day, they still were processed in 2 different versions of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom: 6.6.1 and 6.5 . This all points to you not being the author since there is more than one author. Unless you can prove that Greg Doherty has agreed to a cc-zero license for File:The-dark-horse-premiere-0121.jpg through COM:OTRS these files need to be deleted. This seems unlikely since he is still selling the picture --Vera (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK, so one of the other two is also credited to Greg Doherty on GettyImages. This doesn't change that these pictures are very likely not under a CC-zero license. Familiarize yourself with the OTRS system if you think you can genuinly proof that he has agreed to this license. --Vera (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vera speaking for Greg Doherty - thanks for all this, Greg indeed took all these photos', and happily provides a cc-zero license for all of them, none of them have been published or sold anywhere else, the photo you said he still selling is a different photo to these, (similar but different), these are all unpublished, owned by him, and he is the author of all. If there is some way you would like Greg to go further and prove cc-zero licence just let know. And once again, not a 'sock puppet' thanks Masterclass21 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Full explenations is at COM:OTRS, you can try our new release generator -Vera (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Vera, have just done so using the release generator link you provided Masterclass21 (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Image is available at stated source (here for direct URL) but no evidence of license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
possible copyvios - these logos may be above COM:TOO
- File:Velocity eSports Logo.png
- File:Team Curse eSports Logo.png
- File:SHC Logo.png
- File:Aaalogo.png
- File:Giants logo.net.png
- File:Am-a.akamaihd.net.png
INeverCry 04:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I'm not aware of who Thomas Sørenes is, 2606:6000:618C:6A00:94C7:9F87:40C5:1875 04:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Im not sure who Thomas Sørenes is, but this is my image, that i took myself, and own! Neph Nelson Photography_ Venice Beach, CA 2606:6000:618C:6A00:94C7:9F87:40C5:1875 04:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence that the IP person is the copyright holder. Perhaps they can provide a higher resolution version of the photo in order to prove authorship. Gijón16 (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Some data points: Flickr has it at 1600x1067 with EXIF data, while we only have 1024x683 without EXIF (is that a bug in the upload bot?). At the moment, flickr indicates "all rights reserved", so the uploader there may have mistakenly used the default cc-by at first. TinEye only knows about two other places of publication: At www.imagekind.com attributing it to Thomas Soerenes, and at www.deccanchronicle.com without attribution. Most images in Thomas Sørenes' Flickr account, including those from his home country Norway, specify the same EOS 550D (identical camera ID) in their EXIF data (some exceptions with an Ixos 85 IS, and at least one with an EOS 6D). While I have found self-claimed hints at the existence of a "Blues Guitarist, Poet, Writer, & Photographer" named Neph Nelson, I was unable to identify a single picture attributed to him anywhere (his instagram account is set to private). --Latebird (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: a CC license cannot be revoked and also applies to all resolutions of a picture. --Jcb (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
for personal security please remove my picture and name Edgarkurchavzyk (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: in use - release is not revocable. --Jcb (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Rainer.minnerop (talk · contribs)
[edit]No information about the source of the maps and how they are licensed.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--ghouston (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation João Justiceiro (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, personal and unused photos. Common is not Facebook.
Steinsplitter (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
copyvio: no indication that uploader works for 20th C Fox or holds the rights to the poster Seb az86556 (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
this one is borderline: I'd call it a copyvio since there's no indication that the uploader holds the copyright as claimed in the licesing (similar to all the other movie-posters by uploaded by this user). It might be a case of "too simple to be eligible for copyright" -- but in that case, it needs a different template as license. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: with PD-ineligible. --Jcb (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope.
- File:Sunrise, Nuweibaa 00 (45).JPG
- File:Sunrise, Nuweibaa 00 (43).JPG
- File:Sunrise, Nuweibaa 00 (13).JPG
- File:Sunrise, Nuweibaa 00 (68).JPG
- File:Sunrise, Nuweibaa 00 (56).JPG
- File:Sunrise, Nuweibaa 00 (58).JPG
- File:Sunrise, Nuweibaa 00 (57).JPG
- File:Sunrise, Nuweibaa 00 (55).JPG
- File:Sunrise, Nuweibaa 00 (54).JPG
.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}
Ies (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: by me and Túrelio Alan (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope.
- File:Egyptian Museum (353).jpg
- File:Egyptian Museum (348).jpg
- File:Egyptian Museum (323).jpg
- File:Egyptian Museum (319).jpg
- File:Egyptian Museum (299).jpg
- File:Egyptian Museum (298).jpg
- File:Egyptian Museum (295).jpg
- File:Egyptian Museum000 (6).jpg
.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}
Ies (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair use images:posters --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- This action is classified as a type of harassment because I, as sysop, rejected some administrative requested moves of this user on Arabic Wikipedia. So, there is no logical reason to delete these photos as he has indicated.--لا روسا (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --lNeverCry 21:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raghav v j (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Priscila da Silva Bebiano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Legendários Durothesp.jpg
- File:Boaz tênis de mesa.jpg
- File:Captura de Tela (8).png
- File:Contrabaixo acústico.jpg
- File:Músicos.jpg
- File:Pri e Boaz.jpg
- File:Boaz e Agnaldo Rayol.jpg
- File:Boaz na Hora do Faro.jpg
- File:Boaz Duo Sampa Cello.jpg
- File:Mion entrevistando o Duorthesp.jpg
- File:Boaz concentrado.jpg
- File:Boaz Quarteto Villani.jpg
- File:Boaz no Shopping Eldorado.jpg
- File:Boaz no Prelúdio.jpg
- File:Boaz Criança.jpg
- File:Boaz no Jô Soares.jpg
- File:Baterista Boaz.jpg
- File:Boaz de Oliveira.jpg
- File:Violoncelos com Silvio Santos.jpg
- File:Violoncelista Boaz.jpg
- File:Programa Legendários TV Record.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Not a useful depiction of the subject. MSJapan (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - use {{Rename}} instead. --Jcb (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a source at http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/real-estate/2016/07/hardees-headquarters-rocky-mount-raleigh.html#i1 which credits the photo to CBRE-Raleigh (who handled the sale of the property). Cannot find an explicit source with an earlier upload date, but user has uploaded several other copyvios, this is smallish resolution, and no EXIF. Seems likely it came from elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Source is http://web.rockymountchamber.org/cwt/external/wcpages/wcnews/newsarticledisplay.aspx?articleid=630 (direct image here); not "own work". Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This was an architectural computer graphic of a then-upcoming property; not "own work". Source is http://www.nhcs.org/groundbreaking . Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Source is http://www.millenniumhwy.net/Raleigh_Roadgeek_Mtg_2004/Raleigh_Roadgeek_Mtg_2004.html ; no indication of free license, and almost certainly not "own work". Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Image has low resolution, no EXIF, and a border which indicates it came from internet. Possible source is http://www.co.nash.nc.us/facilities/facility/details/Claude-Mayo-Jr-Administration-Building-11 ; though style of website makes it impossible to see when the image was originally available there. Uploader has a number of other copyvio uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
seems copyvio. low size. no meta data Saqib (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flickr user credits "B. Lowe" (a third party) as the author of the photo, so the Flickr license is likely a mistake, or at the very least, not confirmed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
not in scope of commons Saqib (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
not in scope of commons Saqib (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
not in scope of commons Saqib (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Too recent work in order to be copyrights free and as of the claim that the copyrights owner allows it to be posted here, I'm quite doubtfull... Glorious 93 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deluka Santos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Deluka Santos 04.jpg
- File:Deluka Santos 03.jpg
- File:Deluka Santos 02.jpg
- File:Deluka Santos 01.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://higheredlive.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/13000_Charles_Ries_007.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lazaro cambuim (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://www.flickr.com/photos/egbertoaraujo/15718991655.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.movetodetroit.org/files/2010/09/detroit_skyline_dramatic_900x675.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Modern art. I think artist identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Historical paintings. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Arado utilizado en la antigua roma.jpg
- File:Transporte por ruta en la antigua roma.jpg
- File:Arado que se utilizaba en la época galo-romana.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NQcUt4uThgM/UP_gEQWChfI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/xnhH08q_XXk/s1600/ayuntamiento.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded by mistake Morphinejack (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
this didnt get uploaded under wiki loves monuments contest, so i want to upload it properly. Kindly Delete this file immediately Akshatha Inamdar (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
this didnt get uploaded under wiki loves monuments contest, so i want to upload it properly. Kindly Delete this file immediately Akshatha Inamdar (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Ich habe versehentlich die exifs nicht gelöscht. Neues entsprechend bearbeitets Material wird hochgeladen W. kipper (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
![15:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/04#c-W._kipper-2016-09-04T15:23:00.000Z-File:Wohnhaus_"Lindenhof",_Bäckergang_12.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
![16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/04#c-Jcb-2016-09-10T16:21:00.000Z-File:Wohnhaus_"Lindenhof",_Bäckergang_12.jpg){kind=link}
Highly doubt this was granted under the indicated license. No licensing information at all, simply points to a tweet. 
Husky (talk to me) 15:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Recadrage de cette image sous copyright : http://www.stephanelarue.com/Quand-Miko-Tweet-sur-Secret-Story-Ces-gens-qui-se-mettent-ensemble-depuis-7mn50-et-qui-parlent-de-couple_a10712.html Bastenbas (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation : https://twitter.com/mikofficiel Bastenbas (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC) to Bastenbas This is me !!! and it is my personal picture ...
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: personal photo used in deleted en:Ranbir singh(singer) JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Usage Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works - not a Commons compatible license Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private picture host. Not used. Tabercil (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
This is copyright infringement as per there other uploads. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Why should the be deleted? It is freely available in public domain.
According to laws of copyright internationally, a reproduction of a photograph that too of a public personality, available freely on public domain / internet/ published newspapers / magazines, unless secured by a rider underneath the photograph/document, are to be treated as rights free documents and photographs and needs no further permission!
- The above is not true. In most countries, the author owns the copyright as soon as the work is created, without the necessity of officially "claiming" it. Delete. ~ Rob13Talk 04:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Watermarked; source says it's copyright, and certainly not own work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Image has a watermark from a source website yet claimed "own work"; likely copyvio. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Unsure. Source appears to be http://pathinfo.wikia.com/wiki/File:Rsz_photo-campus-aerial-09.jpg ; do not see an explicit license there. It's also not the highest resolution, and I do see the image used on ecu.edu websites, though nothing that 100% confirms it predates the 2010 wikia upload. However, the upload here is 2014 and claimed "own work", which is definitely wrong. And the wikia upload may not be by the author either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedically useful - it's supposedly a picture of a school, but it can barely be seen. MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedically useful - the walls are more prominent than the subject of the photo. MSJapan (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedically useful. A picture of a graveyard is not a useful illustration of the village. MSJapan (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedically useful/out of scope. A picture of a graveyard is not a useful illustration of the village (per the gallery it is used in), and we don't have an article on graveyards in Pakistan that this could be used in. MSJapan (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
collage out of scope, as well as File:PETER-CALLAO.jpg and other uploads Pibwl (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, unused Pibwl (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Publicity photograph, published previously: http://cheveremusica.com/artist/franklinyulian MKFI (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Red Booster (talk · contribs)
[edit]Red Booster band images, published previously: http://redbooster.bandcamp.com/releases, https://redbooster.bandpage.com/. OTRS permission needed.
- File:R.B Berlin.jpg
- File:Red Booster in Berlin.jpg
- File:Red Booster.jpg
- File:Red Booster Live Berlin.jpg
MKFI (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused selfie, out of COM:Scope. Andrew jairaj sv speedy deleted for lack of notability. MKFI (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LouMycroft (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images have been previously published in https://teachnorthern.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/social-purpose-education-and-the-community-of-praxis/, https://teachnorthern.wordpress.com/about-us/about-northern-college/, https://twitter.com/teachnorthern.
OTRS permission is needed.
- File:Brighton Beach by Lou Mycroft.jpg
- File:The Northern College from across the lawn.jpg
- File:Social Purpose Cornerstones.jpg
MKFI (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi I am also the owner of www.teachnorthern.wordpress.com and the teachnorthern twitter account. I am the owner of the photographs - I photographed them myself. Do I have to do anything more to evidence this? LouMycroft (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- @LouMycroft: please send an email with license permissions as instructed in Commons:OTRS.
- You can also add CC-license to the images in www.teachnorthern.wordpress.com if that is easier. MKFI (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi the page suggested I would not have to email if I took out a Creative Commons license on my Wordpress site www.teachnorthern.wordpress.com I have done this. The @teachnorthern Twitter account is associated with this blog. I have tried to upload the screenshot for this without success, I hope this link will suffice https://www.dropbox.com/s/ts6rppz29ffpbex/Screenshot%202016-09-04%2020.13.31.png?dl=0 LouMycroft (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, yes that is quite sufficient and the site shows the CC-license. I will let another uninvolved user to close this. MKFI (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rao Dimple (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rao Dimple (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Indian hotel rooms (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ies (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted by INeverCry. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from author Luis Eduardo Garcia (if dead, then from heir) is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Steve Morgan as no license. There is a {{PD-US}}, which he removed and I restored. If it is indeed a 1889 US work, the license is valid. But the given source is not showing the image (anymore) nor indicating anything about the age of it. JuTa 07:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- The license {{PD-US}} only applies to a photograph if the photograph was published before 1923, and neither the date the building was constructed nor the date the photo was taken (c. 1889) are relevant – something User:JuTa and the photo's uploader, User:RThompson82, do not seem to understand, even though I already explained it below the notice I left on the uploader's talk page (and in the edit summary I left when tagging the file's page). The uploader has not provided any information that would enable his/her claim that the photograph was published (not merely taken) before 1923 to be verified. This seems to be a common misunderstanding at Commons, and I really wish that there were a problem-tag template that was tailored to this issue. Steve Morgan (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [2]. Yann (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=340008412#File:PortlandHotelConstruction.jpg){kind=link}
For such a specific PD rationale (relying on simultaneous publication in the US and the source country), there's precious little information about when and where these publications supposedly happened. Also, {{PD-URAA-Simul}} is not sufficient on its own without a license or PD rationale for the source country; see Commons:Copyright tags#Non-U.S. works. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
unused; surrounding white space needs to be cropped; can be replaced by File:CostasArray44.png Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Bonne idée. --ManiacParisien 13:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
For such a specific PD rationale (relying on simultaneous publication in the US and the source country), there's precious little information about when and where these publications supposedly happened. Also, {{PD-URAA-Simul}} is not sufficient on its own without a license or PD rationale for the source country; see Commons:Copyright tags#Non-U.S. works. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Very unlikely authorship claims given the nature of the photo and the uploader's history. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Nonsens upload used to vandalize in es:Evo Morales
Ies (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The guidebook was authored by Adam Fox, who died in 1977; the contents were first published in the UK, where they are copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death Hchc2009 (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 18:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No EXIF, strong doubts of own work. The user has a history of copyvio uploading and just recreated a previously deleted article on en.wp Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
unused, no cat - it isn't known why it is in scope, along with File:PERU-FIEF..jpg Pibwl (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
out of scope - architect's promotion, no cat., as well as File:AV PUJATO para revista-Model.jpg and remaining uploads Pibwl (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of non-architectural work of Soviet art, not covered by FoP-Russia. A.Savin 09:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of non-architectural work of Soviet art, not covered by FoP-Russia. A.Savin 09:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of non-architectural work of Soviet art, not covered by FoP-Russia. A.Savin 09:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of non-architectural work of Soviet art, not covered by FoP-Russia. A.Savin 09:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of non-architectural work of Soviet art, not covered by FoP-Russia. A.Savin 09:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of non-architectural work of Soviet art, not covered by FoP-Russia. A.Savin 09:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
unusable quality Pibwl (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
unusable quality, with "artistic" effect Pibwl (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo Pibwl (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
No source for such fantasy-flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomada (talk • contribs) 2016-08-31T16:09:29 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
there is better quality version — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunu (talk • contribs) 2016-09-02T15:04:03 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Privacy Issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efehan Demir (talk • contribs) 2016-08-31T09:42:52 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
wrong stereochemistry / The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals, 14. Auflage (Merck & Co., Inc.), Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA, 2006; S. 5906−5907, ISBN 978-0-911910-00-1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jü (talk • contribs) 2016-09-02T16:40:29 (UTC)
- Delete but all occurrences need to be replaced first.
- @Jü: Could you check the other structures in Category:Mesembrine, too? --Leyo 07:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Leyo: I don't find time for this task for the time being. Please remind me again in November. --Jue (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
_3.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Model from a game (only the texture is original), no indication this is free. Same goes for all other uploads from the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariomassone (talk • contribs) 2016-08-30T12:02:38 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
_3.png){kind=link}
_4.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Model from a game (only the texture is original), no indication this is free. Same goes for all other uploads from the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariomassone (talk • contribs) 2016-08-30T12:02:59 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
_4.png){kind=link}
_5.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Model from a game (only the texture is original), no indication this is free. Same goes for all other uploads from the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariomassone (talk • contribs) 2016-08-30T12:03:27 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
_5.png){kind=link}
_6.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_6.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Model from a game (only the texture is original), no indication this is free. Same goes for all other uploads from the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariomassone (talk • contribs) 2016-08-30T12:03:59 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
_6.png){kind=link}
_7.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_7.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Model from a game (only the texture is original), no indication this is free. Same goes for all other uploads from the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariomassone (talk • contribs) 2016-08-30T12:04:19 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
_7.png){kind=link}
_8.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_8.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Model from a game (only the texture is original), no indication this is free. Same goes for all other uploads from the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariomassone (talk • contribs) 2016-08-30T12:05:00 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
_8.png){kind=link}
Really poor technique of this image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel trzy (talk • contribs) 2016-09-01T18:08:18 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This is photo of identifiable minors. As noted in COM:CSCR#Japan, a consent is required for publishing the photo of identifiable persons even in public places. Although this photo was taken adjacent to the smiling subjects, it is unlikely that there is the consent of all the subjects to publish this photo on the internet. Additionally, this photo includes the name tags showing their full names, which should be considered as sensitive personal information. I believe this should be deleted. Yapparina (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Delete)--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah agreed -- deerstop (*•̀ᴗ•́*). 21:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- These images have been discussed at w:ja:Wikipedia:井戸端/subj/あきらかに一般人に対する盗撮と思しき写真は掲載してよいのか since Sep 3. 49.239.72.17 23:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Identifiable minors with no evidence of consent from the subjects. (See recent similar deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:School children at a train stration in Japan (2241029271).jpg. --DAJF (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment: See also the following similar deletion requests currently open:
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Exif information clearly counters author's claim. Coderzombie (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I personally don't understand why and what problem 'Coderzombie' is having with my page! Will it be more helpful for him if my page won't be there? He/she had requested to delete the page itself which was a nonsense move without seeing previous discussion regarding the same and it resulted in KEEP 2nd time; at present is having some problem with new Profile picture and last but not the least, the page is under major construction at present! Jaydev Pala (talk)
- Jaydev Pala, I have no personal problems with you or "your" page, but images uploaded on Wikipedia have to abide by the certain copyright rules. This particular image seems to violate those rules, that's why I have nominated this image. Whether the page is under reconstruction or not has nothing to do with validity of this image on Wikipedia. Coderzombie (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Coderzombie Then can you please explain me what exact problem you are having with this image? I would highly appriciate if you can guide me on it as I can't see any problem with any kind of copyright thing. Yes, I want to stop sharing of this image but am unable to find appropriate attribute. So you can guide me rather than putting it for deletion. I believe that we always do have a specific place to discuss or one can edit the page itself then you shouldn't apply for the above step. Thanks Jaydev Pala (talk)
- Jaydev Pala, you claim that this is your own work, but on the top left side of the image, it's obvious that it has copyright tag, which you have removed. Can you prove that you are author of this work? Coderzombie (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Coderzombie Oh! It was just a minor edit when I tried to reduce the size of this image. I can upload original version of it where you won't find that 'blur' part! Will it be okay for you? If still not, can delete it. I do have other photos because no one can recapture the same photo for someone!Jaydev Pala (talk)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Français : Ce monument est classé au patrimoine sous la référence PA00086569. Par ailleurs, j'ai obtenu l'autorisation du département cultuel du service des monuments historiques de la Ville de Paris, ainsi que l'aide explicite du curé de la paroisse. Ddeveze
- Comment Il y a un ticket OTRS relatif à cette photographie: otrs:9415894. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: for now, leaving it to the OTRS procedure. --Jcb (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tamarat farhat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tamarat farhat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Gallery of personal images, unattributed artwork (cartoons), modified photos, and collages. None has a proper source or license, all claimed as own work and all obviously not.
- File:118 1 636x900.png
- File:ALBOM FACEBOOK 2016.jpg
- File:Large برشلونة-يحارب-ليستر-بالأموال-للتعاقد-مع-محرز-cc46b.jpg
- File:Aljeria 2016.jpg
- File:FARHAT DJ X abom 2016.jpg
- File:Nanos le bitbol.png
- File:Farhat font dj x.jpg
- File:Aljeria fot.jpg
- File:Farhat d2016j.jpg
- File:Tahachat 2016.jpg
- File:Farhat+elbitbol 2016.jpg
- File:Ahsan2015.jpg
- File:AZIZ TIKOLA2015.jpg
- File:Arato 2 2015.jpg
- File:Hsan kostim).jpg
- File:ARATO maztol.jpg
- File:NANOS BITBOL.jpg
- File:Farhat.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Non free Licence poster. Not a personal work. http://www.cholet.fr/artpublic/templates/tempVille/imgpage/sports.jpg Benoît Prieur (d) 12:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be bulk COM:NETCOPYVIO; multiple cameras (Canon EOS 600D, NIKON D7000, iPhone 5, Canon EOS 20D, etc.) others low resolution, uploader has numerous copyvios (see talk/deleted contribs), etc. Many (all) found elsewhere on web prior to upload (e.g., File:Pacujalur.jpg is here; File:Hindutemple binjai.jpg is here; File:Tugupahlawan binjai.jpg is here; File:Serampang12.jpg is here, etc.
- File:Pacujalur.jpg
- File:Hindutemple binjai.jpg
- File:Tugupahlawan binjai.jpg
- File:Sta.binjai.jpg
- File:Binjai night.jpg
- File:Toba-explorer-ii-off-the-tourist-trail-pematang-siantar.jpg
- File:Siantaravalokitesvara.jpg
- File:Tatungskw.jpg
- File:Singkawangroad.jpg
- File:Singkawang dragon.jpg
- File:Bakartongkang.jpg
- File:Tuguikan.jpg
- File:Medanpanoramic.jpg
- File:Serampang12.jpg
- File:Knostation.jpg
- File:Osmanimosque mdn.jpg
- File:Medan Cathedral.jpg
- File:Nsm.jpg
- File:Maitreyamdn2.jpg
- File:Budai maitreya.jpg
- File:Sun Plaza Medan.jpg
- File:Maitreya mdn.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 12:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
German photo, ca. 1925. The photographer of a ca. 1925 photograph could well have lived beyond 1945, which would mean the photograph is still protected in its country of origin. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. And no, that the photographer is said to be "unknown" does not make the photo "anonymous" in a legal sense. The Anonymous-EU tag and similar tags aren't applicable to German works anyway, since German law says that pre-1995 anonymous works are only really anonymous if the author (here: the photographer) was never publicly disclosed anywhere, not even in a lecture or similar. One cannot prove that, so pre-1995 "anonymous" works from Germany are not suitable for Commons (or de.wp). Rosenzweig τ 12:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 14:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 14:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Salvatore Pullara (talk · contribs)
[edit]Are these images used outside WMF projects? If not, they are out of Commons:Project scope.
- File:Manifesto Favara Mapping party 16 ottobre 2016.jpg
- File:Locandina Favara mapping party 16 ottobre 2016.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: personal photo used in deleted en:Dinu Patidar JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%93._%D0%9A._%D0%96%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%83_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%D0%B0_%D0%93._%D0%9A._%D0%96%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%83.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
blurred image Leha-11 (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Это художественный прием: резкость сосредоточена на переднем плане (на ветках). This artistic technique: the sharpness of focus in the foreground (on branches).
- Основной объект невозможно разглядеть, зачем выкладывать такое фото? --Leha-11 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Personal dislike of technique is not a criterion for deletion. --Figure19 (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Jcb (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since) Sanandros (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why does this file need a source?--Sanandros (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Every file needs to be correctly sourced. This file also does have some other problems. In the first place the license does not apply. This is not a federal government work. So file could be tagged as 'missing permission' as well. Also this file seems out of scope. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep@Jcb: What are you talking about? It is a document of the US Court system, and is the finding of facts of the judge (ipso facto "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties") It should be bleeding obvious how to document the work, and these sorts of works should never end up here in these circumstances. Re scope ... ummm, many works of the US court system are here and utilised at both enWP and enWS, maybe a reappraisal of that statement. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- The "source" would be the court it self, it may be not PD-USGov but defently PD-verdict. And I think the Ritchie case is within scope because the gouverment for the first time admits it was using drugs and other wikis could quote out of the case.--Sanandros (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Feel free to correct the license if you can find a valid one. The current license clearly states: "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." - so at the moment the file has no valid license, which is a demanding deletion reason. Jcb (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The "source" would be the court it self, it may be not PD-USGov but defently PD-verdict. And I think the Ritchie case is within scope because the gouverment for the first time admits it was using drugs and other wikis could quote out of the case.--Sanandros (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Every file needs to be correctly sourced. This file also does have some other problems. In the first place the license does not apply. This is not a federal government work. So file could be tagged as 'missing permission' as well. Also this file seems out of scope. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Wouldn't this file be better moved to wikisource? It's not a "media file" in the sense normally used by Commons. (Besides that, United States district courts are federal entities, so that {{PD-US-Gov}} seems quite appropriate.) --Latebird (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- The license was changed and the current license seems fine. But IMHO it's still out of Commons scope. Jcb (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: I see no reason why we should be keeping decisions of US courts -- they are easily available from other sources. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)