Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/09/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![50 File:"Persona" Seyran Martirosyan 01.jpg](#File:"Persona"_Seyran_Martirosyan_01.jpg){kind=link}
![51 File:"Persona" Seyran Martirosyan 02.jpg](#File:"Persona"_Seyran_Martirosyan_02.jpg){kind=link}
![52 File:"Persona" Seyran Martirosyan 03.jpg](#File:"Persona"_Seyran_Martirosyan_03.jpg){kind=link}
![53 File:"Schwan" mdr 1994.jpg](#File:"Schwan"_mdr_1994.jpg){kind=link}
![54 File:"Vicente Palermo".jpg](#File:"Vicente_Palermo".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![321 File:Compañeros con "derechos".png](#File:Compañeros_con_"derechos".png){kind=link}
![352 File:Hazrat TATAR Shah Baba" رحمت اللہ علیہ.jpg](#File:Hazrat_TATAR_Shah_Baba"_رحمت_اللہ_علیہ.jpg){kind=link}
![353 File:"A call to humanity" number 1.jpg](#File:"A_call_to_humanity"_number_1.jpg){kind=link}
![354 File:"Carehue".jpg](#File:"Carehue".jpg){kind=link}
![355 File:"Estatua Orante de Juan de Padilla en su arco sepulcral procedente de Fres del Val" al Mueso Provincial de Burgos..jpg](#File:"Estatua_Orante_de_Juan_de_Padilla_en_su_arco_sepulcral_procedente_de_Fres_del_Val"_al_Mueso_Provincial_de_Burgos..jpg){kind=link}
![356 File:"Facets" Citations.png](#File:"Facets"_Citations.png){kind=link}
![357 File:"Memories of Kermarji".png](#File:"Memories_of_Kermarji".png){kind=link}
![358 File:"Memories of Kumarji".png](#File:"Memories_of_Kumarji".png){kind=link}
![359 File:"Mi Ma Oss".jpg](#File:"Mi_Ma_Oss".jpg){kind=link}
![363 File:"Text's Topology".png](#File:"Text's_Topology".png){kind=link}
![364 File:"Waving House".jpg](#File:"Waving_House".jpg){kind=link}
![366 File:"Євромайдан" у Валенсії.jpg](#File:"Євромайдан"_у_Валенсії.jpg){kind=link}
![367 File:"Савич парк".jpg](#File:"Савич_парк".jpg){kind=link}
![379 File:" fune d'acciaio ".jpg](#File:"_fune_d'acciaio_".jpg){kind=link}
this image is really from Instagram. It does not belong to the user 173.55.239.44 01:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 02:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chateau-de-chantilly.jpg
cc-by-nc-2.0 173.55.239.44 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, License review: Non-free license, or license disallowing commercial use and/or derivative works. --Wdwd (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No source or copyright details for the original publication. --ghouston (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't belong here 135.0.155.11 02:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --INeverCry 00:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The picture is downloaded from the website of Department of Computer Science, Princeton University without permission. It's not a PD and violates the ToS [1] as well. Marcus Hsu talk 03:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Poltergeist96 (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work, small/middle size without EXIF, other uploads were obvious copyvios
Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Upload was unsucessful as horizontal bars appeared on the photo. I will retry when this one is deleted. Ville de Canet-en-Roussillon (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Widely published (example: http://wahlweise.jmmv.de/tag/elisabeth-assmann/), no proof of free license. See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos. MKFI (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
File EXIF shows "Author: Alan Warren alanwarren@vtr.net Copyright holder: Alan Warren". MKFI (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Philomatick (talk · contribs)
[edit]Press photographs, doubtful own work. See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos.
- File:Dirk Stamer SPD Pressefoto 2016.jpg
- File:Nadine Julitz SPD Pressefoto 2016.jpg
- File:Philipp da Cunha Pressefoto 2016.jpg
MKFI (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 00:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Software screenshot. MKFI (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
probably grabbed from the web http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2297663/ Albinfo (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio, no evidence it has been releaed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 Gyrostat (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
From bafta.org, no evidence it has been released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 Gyrostat (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
possible copyright violation http://www.silkeaichhorn.de/sites/default/files/styles/bilder-large/public/sa_pressebild_4.jpg?itok=7aK6Hw40 http://www.fnweb.de/nachrichten/kultur/schatze-des-18-jahrhunderts-werden-ausgegraben-1.680899 Frze > talk 09:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Searching with TinEye shows that the file existed in 2010 on the Homepage of RKW: https://tineye.com/search/9909626918d2ed8e95558b15e1370933131491d8/?sort=size&order=desc .There is no permission to be seen. Stefan Bellini (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The uploader writes that this photo is made by Sarah Wong and is copied from a book cover. So Sparrenboom is NOT the author. Erik Wannee (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Small size, source since 2009: http://www.ekhbaryat.net/?newsID=16456 بدارين-bdareen (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Mdgs.png (the same file) was recently deleted. It has also been deleted from enwp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_August_31#File:Chart_of_UN_Sustainable_Development_Goals.png Ainali (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
This photograph is not the work of the uploader. This is an AFP photo 188.104.117.83 12:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Media is licensed by-nc-sa 3.0 (non-commercial) [2] so can not be distributed by Commons. (COM:L) --dsprc (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [3]. Yann (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=918686396#File:Riseup_Network_Rainbow_Logo.svg){kind=link}
misspelling, see "wild ins Kraut schiessen", the correct form is already uploaded Jeuwre (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Not own work, image published in 2011 here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110208044722/http://xn--80abe8aqxe.com/ (full resolution http://www.xn--80abe8aqxe.com/photo.jpg) and only in 2015 posted at commons Cap1000 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://sportshub.cbsistatic.com/i/r/2016/06/02/c9d5ec9a-5b46-4601-8a9a-c3c28fabc34e/thumbnail/170x170/7ebc5fc602fa98cf2597262d051fae62/garyparrish.png. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tafhimul Jannat Sifat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Seemingly copyrighted images, not "own work", see watermark "onuronon"
Ies (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 00:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yogendrasoni111 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Ganpati Tent House & Tent Agency.png
- File:Ganpati Tent House.png
- File:Ganpati Tent Agency.png
- File:Ganpati Tent Agency & HOUSE.png
Ies (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: blatant spam. --INeverCry 00:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
stated licence not allowed 80.235.147.186 03:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: non-commercial license. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CwoodsBestGamingTechnology (talk · contribs)
[edit]A series of product shots, advertising images, company photos, and so on, no indication of user's own work, looks more like a carefully crafted Advertising / Promotional set of images than anyone's own work.
- File:Armin Sageder.png
- File:BGT-Sponsoring Wiener Tafel.jpg
- File:BGT Terminal tailored Solution for Belgium.jpg
- File:BGT Tablet tailored solution for Austria.jpg
- File:BGT Self Service Setup Shop tailored Solution for Austria.jpg
- File:BGT Self Service Setup Shop tailored Solution for Austria ChangeSystem.jpg
- File:BGT Till.png
- File:BGT Terminal.png
- File:BGT Mobile.png
- File:BGT Desktop.png
- File:BGT CompactTerminal.png
- File:BGT Messestand ICE-2016.jpg
- File:BGT GlobalFootprint.jpg
- File:BGT OmniChannel.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CwoodsBestGamingTechnology (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per earlier deletion request by Ellin Beltz. After deletion, uploader has simply re-uploaded the files.
- File:Armin Sageder.png
- File:BGT-Sponsoring Wiener Tafel.jpg
- File:BGT Till.png
- File:BGT Terminal.png
- File:BGT OmniChannel.jpg
- File:BGT Mobile.png
- File:BGT Messestand ICE-2016.jpg
- File:BGT GlobalFootprint.jpg
- File:BGT Desktop.png
- File:BGT CompactTerminal.png
- File:BGT Terminal tailored Solution for Belgium.jpg
- File:BGT Tablet tailored solution for Austria.jpg
- File:BGT Self Service Setup Shop tailored Solution for Austria.jpg
- File:BGT Self Service Setup Shop tailored Solution for Austria ChangeSystem.jpg
Henxter (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios re-uploaded out of process. --INeverCry 00:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Merrychrists (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete Per nomination. Even if there was a slightest legitimate use for this image on WMF projects, it would nonetheless require Commons' OTRS permission. But if an OTRS permission is submitted, then it could make sense to crop the advertisement out or to upload the background image seperately, which may be in Commons:Project scope. Otherwise, delete for the additional reason of unconfirmed permission. 80.221.159.67 16:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Info Source is a screenshot of Vape Plaza UK website. © 2016, Vape Plaza. Powered by Shopify
, no indication of a free license such as CC BY-SA 4.0 claimed by uploader. Commons:Derivative works is a relevant policy. 80.221.159.67 16:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio/blatant spam. --INeverCry 00:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: blatant spam. --INeverCry 00:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mcduarte (2)
[edit]- File:B-167-RPI 08 2309 P.jpg
- File:Clóvis Volpi.jpg
- File:Antônio Simões.jpg
- File:Valdírio Prisco.jpg
- File:João Mazzieiro.jpg
- File:Maria Inês Soares.jpg
- File:Santinho Carnavale.jpg
- File:Luiz Carlos Grecco.jpg
- File:Arthur Souza Gonçalves Júnior.jpg
- File:Francisco Arnoni.jpg
- File:Adaquir Prisco.jpg
Vague sources, no indication that these have been truly released under CC licenses. Many are reuploads of previously deleted files, see the user talk page. Also, this marks the second mass deletion request for files by this user, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mcduarte. --Victor Lopes (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 00:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope if not spam. Lacrymocéphale (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: blatant spam. --INeverCry 00:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Possible non-free file. Duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_Labour_Party.svg, which is nonfree. Auric (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Labour Party UK logo.svg. Jonteemil (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete With respect, this should have been deleted when @Gbawden: deleted File:Labour Party UK logo.svg on closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Labour Party UK logo.svg, but wasn't. Gbawden, could you delete this one too please? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Hammersoft: My error. Thanks for letting me know Gbawden (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
This image appears to be a subtle form of vandalism, notice the balls in the ballsack on this unused, uncategorized alleged sport logo. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, likely COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, composite of boy band members. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
CD or poster, not own work Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nelson carlos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely/demonstrably false authorship claims considering the low resolutions, missing/inconsistent/incriminating metadata, and previous publications found elsewhere. The uploader obviously either doesn't understand or doesn't care what the words "own work", "author" or "copyright holder" mean.
- File:Piña Villanueva.jpg – http://www.thenational.ae/sport/football/al-shabab-join-al-nasr-in-gcc-club-cup-semi-finals
- File:Daniel el "Chucky" Gonzalez.jpg
- File:Maturana sub 20.jpg
- File:Edson Puch presentado en Emiratos Árabes.jpg
- File:Edson iquique.jpg
- File:Liebre Riveros.jpg
- File:Ligua puebla.jpg
- File:Luis fuentes.jpg
- File:Kalule.jpg
- File:Jose luis diaz.jpg
- File:Goleador del Desierto.jpg
- File:Paredes capitan.jpg
- File:Valencia regateando.jpg
- File:Leo valencia celebrando.jpg – non-free photo by Norberto Duarte/AFP according to metadata
- File:Comando Puch.jpg
- File:Villalobos.jpg – non-free photo by Alex Díaz/Aton Chile, grabbed from http://chile.as.com/chile/2015/09/24/futbol/1443091939_261797.html
- File:Villagol.jpg – non-free photo by Carolina Reyes/FJ Chile, grabbed from http://fjchile.cl/manuel-villalobos-mundialista-sub-17-no-tenemos-que-traspasar-presion/
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 00:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
possible test upload 173.55.239.44 19:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Spedydelete as the uploader wants. @173.55.239.44: Do not create idiotic DRs. --jdx Re: 21:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have an important question. How are you supposed to refrain from creating idiotic DRs? --173.55.239.44 21:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's in no way "own work" as it's claimed. It's from http://www.fcbarcelona.es/, y en el fin de la página se dice "© Copyright FC Barcelona". Vítor (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Appears to me to be incompatible license at source (see https://newyorkyimby.com/termsofuse). P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
http://www.pacificcoastnews.com/ implies images coming from there are "All rights reserved". The site seems to be behind a paywall but other sites on the Internet attribute the image to pacificcoastnews as well, e.g http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/W_z9UYCmWLT/Time+Premieres+London+Part+3/hZMbX7gh0YP/Tom+Hughes. Also noting that en:File:Tom Hughes.jpg is currently tagged as "ShadowsCommons", a tag which should be removed if this is deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
the lack of metadata and http://www.tineye.com/search/fd71439b2726c8dcd3fa94ec8ebed5a6e0cba620/ does my doubt Ezarateesteban 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Part of the same photoshot as this. Credited to "modheshworld". Vanjagenije (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, it is copied from her twitter account ([4]). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the same image deleted before or if it has been taken from here but the source shown has been deleted. E4024 (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. This and a different photo were previously deleted. Green Giant (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ioanradostniy (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. This series of images was copied from a website "Dolphin Embassy" and are not own work as claimed. See the small sizes, lack of metadata etc. Some images contain other images, making them Derivative Works without permission as well.
- File:Spotted dolphins sounds transform by Wavelet software by Dolphin Embassy.jpg
- File:The Eve of tomorrow - Dolphin Embassy together with children.jpg
- File:Giacomo Rizzolatti at the Dolphinity World Festival 2015.jpg
- File:Silver award at the European Festival of Underwater Images and Environment in Strasbourg for the Dolphin Embassy's documentary "My Pilot, Whale".jpg
- File:Night in the Cathedral - Dolphin Embassy's event.jpg
- File:Whale and Piano Duet - Dolphin Embassy's concert.jpg
- File:Word to the World - Dolphinity World Festival 2016.jpg
- File:Words of the Word to the World Interactive practice - Dolphinity World Festival 2016.jpg
- File:Pilot whales - meeting in ocean during Dolphinity World Festival 2016.jpg
- File:Musicians on the stage - Dolphinity World Festival 2016.jpg
- File:Main stage - Dolphinity World Festival 2016.jpg
- File:Jean Becchio at the Dolphinity World Festival 2016.jpg
- File:Los Gigantes - Dolphinity World Festival.jpg
- File:Dolphinity World Festival 2015 - Light performance.jpg
- File:Dolphinity World Festival 2016 - guests and participants.jpg
- File:Dolphinity World Festival 2016 - Catamaran trip.jpg
- File:Dolphinity World Festival 2015 - Pablo Veron performance.jpg
- File:Dolphinity World Festival 2016 - Dolphin Watching at the Ocean.jpg
- File:Dolphinity World Festival 2015 - Word to the World practice.jpg
- File:Dolphinity World Festival 2015 - Port of Los Gigantes photo exhibition.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy's headquarter - 30-th parallel project wall.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy - Rene Heuzey's presentation of the movie.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy - Bernard Abeille performance.jpg
- File:Bloko de Valle - Dolphinity World Festival 2016.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy - headquarter's logo.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy - Children inspiration.jpg
- File:Mingyur Rinpoche and Tulku Tashi Dorje with the Dolphin Embassy's gong - Tergar monastery, Nepal.jpg
- File:Dolphinity World Festival 2015 - Main port photo ehibition.jpg
- File:Vera Burgi - Ocean Care - Dolphinity World Festival 2015.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy in China - 30th parallel project.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy in Nepal - Tergar monastery.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy headquarter at Puerto Colon, Tenerife.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy - Amritsar - 30th Parallel project.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy - Nocturne project.jpg
- File:Dolphin Embassy - Musician at hidroacoustic lab project.jpg
- File:My pilot whale - pilot whales family.png
- File:My pilot whale - interraction 3.png
- File:MPW - sunset.png
- File:MPW - scene.png
- File:MPW - shooting process.jpg
- File:MPW - interaction2.jpg
- File:MPW - interaction.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 00:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused image, source "FBMD", likely not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:23:00.000Z-File:"Persona"_Seyran_Martirosyan_01.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-15T00:44:00.000Z-File:"Persona"_Seyran_Martirosyan_01.jpg){kind=link}
Unused image, source "FBMD", likely not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:23:00.000Z-File:"Persona"_Seyran_Martirosyan_02.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-15T00:44:00.000Z-File:"Persona"_Seyran_Martirosyan_02.jpg){kind=link}
Unused image, source "FBMD", likely not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:23:00.000Z-File:"Persona"_Seyran_Martirosyan_03.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-15T00:44:00.000Z-File:"Persona"_Seyran_Martirosyan_03.jpg){kind=link}
Overprinting and general lack of quality suggest this is a screen capture and not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:24:00.000Z-File:"Schwan"_mdr_1994.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-15T00:44:00.000Z-File:"Schwan"_mdr_1994.jpg){kind=link}
Unused image of a house, at Facebook size... bearing the usual FBMD metadata. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:27:00.000Z-File:"Vicente_Palermo".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-15T00:44:00.000Z-File:"Vicente_Palermo".jpg){kind=link}
COM:COPYVIOs. No indication of user's own work on any of these images despite the "self" licenses. Some of these are large, some are tiny, no camera meta data (but one picture), apparent book covers, posters, screen shots, etc.
- File:Українське товариство Університету Валенсії.jpg
- File:Олександр та Лідія Колянчук.jpg
- File:Odznaka „Zasłużony Pracownik Rolnictwa” Polski Ludowej.jpg
- File:Номер 8 "Н.У.".jpg
- File:Благодійний конйерт Валенсія.jpg
- File:Український мітинг в Мадриді.jpg
- File:У.В. конференція.jpg
- File:Афіша публікації.jpg
- File:Ukr cena.jpg
- File:Holodomor-UV.jpg
- File:Prz1.jpg
- File:HolodomorUV.jpg
- File:DestinoSanFrancisco.png
- File:IvanFranko.jpg
- File:VicertoradoUV.jpg
- File:UV UA.jpg
- File:Ая6.jpg
- File:DVK40.jpg
- File:Вирізка трансляції сесії Верховної Ради України.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work of the photograph and logo used, also this is advertising something. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Collage of four unattributed images, none of which is likely to be own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --INeverCry 00:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://media1.wataninet.com/2014/12/unnamed-722.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 23:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
part of a mass move from Flickr, unused and no encyclopedic value. Cavarrone (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
mistakenly included in a multiple-images-move from Flickr. Out of scope. Cavarrone (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As the uploader, I was not aware of the legal issues with the removal of watermarks. I would appreciate if this was image was removed. Blue Adventure (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) and also the L3 is using brown color, not orange Sfs90 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake sign, Estación Puente Cal y Canto never had such a "Estación Mapocho" name. Historical hoax. Sfs90 (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) and L6 it's not using these design for signs Sfs90 (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro, and also, Línea 3 doesn't use orange color, it's using brown color Sfs90 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Signs of Santiago Metro stations) without official typeface used by Metro Sfs90 (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) Sfs90 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
per COM:PENIS - very poor quality INeverCry 02:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raju hhirwani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unuseable images due to image destroying watermarks
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (18).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (19).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (17).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (16).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (15).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (14).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (13).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (12).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (11).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (10).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (9).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (8).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (7).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (5).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (6).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (4).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (2).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (3).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography for brand Neha Kamal Sharda (1).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (37).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (34).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (35).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (36).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (33).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (32).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (31).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (30).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (29).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (28).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (27).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (26).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (25).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (24).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (22).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (23).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (21).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (19).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (20).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (18).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (17).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (16).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (14).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (15).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (13).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (11).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (12).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (10).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (9).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (8).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (7).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (6).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (5).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (4).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (3).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (1).jpg
- File:Raju Hhirwani Photography (2).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}
.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) 15:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Agree. The full-screen watermarks make the images unusable. --DAJF (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete : not usable image. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no valid license Triplecaña (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by INeverCry: No permission since 11 September 2016
This gallery of images is apparently artworks by and about a living artist. I checked several, none of the ones I checked is in use. This looks perhaps like a promotional/self-promotional gallery, without reason to retain here on Commons.
- File:TENSEGRIDAD.jpg
- File:MUNDO PRIMORDIAL.jpg
- File:ARTEFACTO3 SERIE ETER CONTINUUM UNI-VERSO.jpg
- File:CGN2912.jpg
- File:ARTEFACTO1 SERIE ETER CONTINUUM UNI-VERSO.jpg
- File:ARTEFACTO2SERIE ETER CONTINUUM UNI-VERSO.jpg
- File:CGN2212.jpg
- File:CGN0713.jpg
- File:CGN0112.jpg
- File:FRACTAL.jpg
- File:RESIDUO.jpg
- File:PLIEGUE.jpg
- File:LUCIDEZ Y TRANSPARENCIA.jpg
- File:OBSERVADOR OBSERVADO.jpg
- File:FUEGO DE HELIOS.jpg
- File:VISION ESPECTRAL.jpg
- File:ENCUENTRO.jpg
- File:ESCALERA AL CIELO.jpg
- File:PINTURA UNO.jpg
- File:FIRMA FELIPE OYARZÚN.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún Taller en Santiago de Chile.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún Taller Providencia.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún Taller en San Juan de Pirque.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún Taller en Pirque.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún Taller en Amsterdam.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún Galpón Recoleta.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún 2013.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún 2008.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún Taller Santiago de Chile.jpg
- File:Felipe Oyarzún 2006.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Donr.wheeler (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, uncategorized images of no apparent educational utility, out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Atascadero-20130719-00003.jpg
- File:Atascadero-20130719-00004.jpg
- File:Atascadero-20130719-00002.jpg
- File:Atascadero-20130719-00001.jpg
- File:Atascadero-20130719-00005.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal images are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Publicfigurekerala (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Vichu roxx 45.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx 24.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx 23.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx 25.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx78.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx 21.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx9.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx8.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx7.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx6.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx5.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx4.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx3.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx1.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx2.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 10.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 09.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 08.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 07.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 06.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 05.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 04.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 03.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 01.jpg
- File:Víchù Rôx'x 02.jpg
Ies (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 08:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Publicfigurekerala (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is no private photo album. Out of scope.
- File:Sahrdaya 18.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 17.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 16.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 15.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 14.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 13.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 12.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 11.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 10.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 09.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 08.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 07.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 06.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 05.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 04.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 01.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 02.jpg
- File:Sahrdaya 03.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx quote2.jpg
- File:Vichu roxx.png
- File:Vichu roxx36.jpg
- Category:Sahrdaya
Achim (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
self-promotion C3r4 (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It's a photo of Bosnian painter Husnija Topić. --romanm (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Because this is my picture and I want to delete Lelasuez (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 07:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
personal picture, out of scope Kayser Ahmad (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
personal picture, out of scope Kayser Ahmad (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused selfie, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Depicted person died in 1983. Own work is unlikely. Who is real photographer, when (s)he died, when and where the photo was first published? Taivo (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexsiegel9 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photographs. Claimed own work but the subject is not the photographer.
MKFI (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused, out of project scope, seemingly promotional Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused, looks promotional, out of project scope, no educational value Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Promotional, out of project scope, no permission, possible copyright violation Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope TFerenczy (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think per watermark, that OTRS-permission from Identic Productions is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No license info in source, date of work is unknown, so I dont have idea, why uploader seted CC Zero Cap1000 (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SHUBHAM BARI (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Restored per OTRS permission and obvious usage. --Krd 11:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sommacal alfonso (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be replaced with wiki-tables.
- File:Tabella di trasmissione con 2 interruttori in parallelo..png
- File:Tabella della trasmissione T.png
- File:Stati binari delle variabili.png
- File:Variabili bianarie.png
- File:Rapporto ingresso uscita in un relè.png
- File:Un codice B.C.D. 2 su 5..png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sommacal alfonso (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:Truh Table for Full Subtractor.png
- File:Excerpt from functional table for FLIP-FLOP JK..png
- File:Tabella funzioni logiche.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sommacal alfonso (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Quattro opperzioni durante il ciclo-esecutivo dele istruzioni.png
- File:Decade relativa al codice 421.png
- File:Tabella di codificazione numeri su base 10.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Richard Wu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope.
- File:16Mhz 石英震盪器.jpg
- File:1N4007 二極體.jpg
- File:5mm激光藍光LED.jpg
- File:100 歐姆 四分之一瓦 精密電阻.jpg
- File:Zener 5.1V二極體.jpg
- File:10k 歐姆 四分之一瓦 碳膜電阻.jpg
Ies (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Richard Wu
[edit]Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope. Richard Wu (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Francisco castillo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Mi hermosa hija.jpg
- File:En busca de una paz.jpg
- File:C Data Users DefApps AppData INTERNETEXPLORER Temp Saved Images 16 - 1.jpg
- File:Francisco castillo con mi familia.jpg
- File:FB 20160804 17 24 51 Saved Picture.jpg
Ies (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Francisco castillo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Soapymassage 1
[edit]Unused promotional logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Depicted person isn't mentioned in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image obviously cut from some other background with a rusty photoshop tool. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely claim of own work on this image of an Ayatollah. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Private pictures of user, out of project scope.
- File:MASE 2013-09-11 07-34.JPG
- File:921 at mzoli 2013-09-11 07-23.jpg
- File:Rastus at mzoli 2013-09-11 07-22.jpg
- File:Man of the moment.jpg
- File:Venda.jpg
- File:Me & my sister.jpg
- File:Khathutshelo Nengovhela.jpg
- File:Chilidzi.jpg
- File:RASTUS921 UWC.jpg
- File:RASTUS921 DREAM.jpg
- File:Rastus921 UWC.jpg
- File:Rastus921 KHODI.jpg
- File:Rastus921 Chess Master.jpg
- File:Table mountain @.jpg
- File:Cool timesRastus921.jpg
- File:Tshilidzi Nengovhela.jpg
- File:RASTUS921.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Personal images only used on user page that is also nominated for deletion, out of scope. A few personal images are allowed for active participants only.
- File:Rastus with hopes.jpg
- File:Rastus day dream.jpg
- File:Avatars-000021027723-5ziw31-crop.jpg
- File:RASTUS9.jpg
- File:RASTUS921.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - promotional images, all out of scope. –Davey2010Talk 18:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete user-page autobio en:User:Rastus921 where these were used has been deleted. JohnCD (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
These images were randomly searched on Flickr. Possible copyright violation.
- File:Travis Fimmel 10.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel 11.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel 2.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel 3.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel 4.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel 5.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel 6.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel 7.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel 8.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel 9.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel-Vikings.jpg
- File:Travis Fimmel.jpg
1989 19:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Flickr uploader doesn't appear to be the copyright holder (flickrphoto:8247814245, flickrphoto:14892024960).
FDMS 4 15:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding deletion request:
- The images on Flickr (tank and taekwondoe) are licensed under CC by 2.0.
- Photographer Tom Ebrite verified by email 30-Mar-2016 his desire that his 1967-68 Vietnam photos be used on Wikimedia under the Creative Commons 3.0 license.
- There are over 500 other images uploaded to Wikimedia from 2013 to 2016 which are from the same two sources under the same licensing terms: tommy japan images and manhhai images (links to wikimedia search showing the images from these two sources)
- The photographs were taken as a work of a U.S. military or Department of Defense employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the images are in the public domain. VeeWin (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @VeeWin:
- The license on Flickr is irrelevant if the Flickr uploader isn't the copyright holder, i.e. created the works him-/herself or obtained the copyrights from the creators.
- If #4 is true, he can't (and doesn't have to) release them. If it isn't, please have him contact OTRS.
- I count 5.
- Please present evidence for your claim, there wasn't only military personell in Vietnam at that time.
- FDMS 4 15:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @FDMS4:
- There are 5 images from "manhhai", 342 from "tommy james" (corrected search link) on Wikimedia. My fault for saying 500; I just saw the 500 on the "view" panel of the search results; the correct total is 347. Looking through several of them, they include the caption: "It was reviewed on 4 July 2014 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0."
- An example of one of these pictures which is used in several places on wikipedia is this image.
- There are lots of photographers in that collection of 300+ images on Wikimedia. I don't know all of them, but some definitely were taking their pictures as part of their job as soldiers of the U.S. government in Vietnam. Regarding Tom Ebrite specifically, the photographer of the tank picture I uploaded (and quite a few of the other pictures in the tommy japan collection), he took the images while serving in central Vietnam in 1967-68 in the 19th Engineer Battalion (Combat)(Army). He (and other photographers) are listed in the U.S. government records from the time; more recently, you can find him on internet searches as an organizer of the commemorative events for the soldiers of that battalion. Moreover, he's said he wants the pictures to be public domain and used here under CC 3.0 and wishes us luck. I suggested to him that he could make his own account and upload the pictures himself, but doing that or emailing might be a little too much effort for him at this stage, so hopefully that's not necessary.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by VeeWin (talk • contribs)
- @VeeWin:
- The bot just checks whether the license (and actual file) on Commons matches the one behind the Flickr link. I could upload literally any picture to Flickr (the most obvious copyvios might get caught by an algorithm), mark it with a free license, transfer it to Commons and the bot would add that review tag to it.
- There might be some acceptable files in manhai's Flickr stream, but if the files were uploaded with an intact source field, you would've received a warning message from the review bot because manhai is on the questionable Flickr users list and you should therefore exercise extra caution when transferring images uploaded by him/her to Flickr.
- I did some research and found that Tom Ebrite was indeed in military duty in Vietnam at that time. As you wrote, only works created as part of a soldier's official duties are in the public domain for that reason. Looking at other photos he took ([1], [2]), it doesn't appear to me that that was the case (since I'm by no means a military expert I might be wrong here). Unless you have something that actually proves that, again, please have Mr. Ebrite contact OTRS – we'd love to have his entire collection under a free license and the release process really doesn't hurt.
- As for the Walter Hart picture (and the future), please note that the burden of proof lies with you. Thanks, FDMS 4 20:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @FDMS4:
Ok. OTRS email sent for the issue here. As for the other 347 photos in the collection, though, they're still on wikimedia and not flagged. Are they grandfathered in? Anyway, good luck. Thanks. VeeWin (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, VeeWin, we have received your message and I have therefore excluded the picture from this deletion request. Please note that this doesn't mean that we can ultimately keep it, just that its fate will be decided at another venue (you will receive a follow-up via eMail). FDMS 4 17:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission from Walter Hart. Second photo undergoing OTRS review, so kept for now. --Storkk (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Images are credited belonging to the G.H. Rothe estate. Rothe died in 2007, which makes this not public domain. There is no proof that this account belongs to the estate, it is likely Flickr Washing.
- File:2-0006 Landscape 3.jpg
- File:2-0007 Anatomy Landscape 5.jpg
- File:2-0008 Anatomy Landscape 6.jpg
- File:2-0010 Anatomy Landscape - Busenbaum I.jpg
- File:2-0011 Anatomy Landscape 8.jpg
- File:2-0012 Anatomy Landscape 10.jpg
- File:2-0013 Anatomy Landscape 11 - Probedruck.jpg
- File:2-0015 Anatomy Landscape 12.jpg
- File:2-0017 Anatomy Landscape.jpg
- File:2-0018 Anatomy Landscape - 2 figures.jpg
- File:2-0019 Anatomy Landscape - hanging eyeballs - augen.jpg
- File:2-0021 Anatomy Landscape - VI - bb 4.jpg
- File:2-0022 Anatomy Landscape - female torsos with skulls - bb 9.jpg
- File:2-0024 Anatomy Landscape - BB 16.jpg
- File:2-0039 Anatomy Landscape - eyes.jpg
- File:2-0040 fingers and penis.jpg
- File:2A-000 Anatomy Landscape -Einzeldruck.jpg
- File:2A-002 Anatomy Landscape - embrace - bb 11.jpg
- File:2A-003 Anatomy Landscape - I - bb 12.jpg
- File:2A-005 Anatomy Landscape - IV - bb 13.jpg
- File:2A-006 Anatomy Landscape - Penises - bb 6.jpg
- File:2A-007 Anatomy Landscape - 2 female forms - bb 20.jpg
- File:2A-008 Anatomy Landscape - 2 figures - bb 22.jpg
- File:2A-010 Anatomy Landscape - 2 figures dark skin - bb21.jpg
- File:2A-013 Anatomy Landscape - skeleton - bb 23.jpg
- File:2A-014 Anatomy Landscape - furry shape - lips.jpg
- File:2A-020 Anatomy Landscape - bb 13.jpg
- File:5-0055 Geriatric Erotic - Fellatio.jpg
- File:5B-008 Anatomy Landscape - penises with helmets - bb 12.jpg
- File:Geriatrica 1.jpg
- File:Geriatrica 2.jpg
- File:Geriatrica 3.jpg
- File:Geriatrica 4.jpg
- File:Geriatrica 5.jpg
- File:Geriatrica 6.jpg
- File:Geriatrica 7.jpg
- File:Geriatrica 8.jpg
- File:Girl with Trumpet Flowers.jpg
- File:Graffiti Doors by GH Rothe.jpg
- File:Midwinter Spring.jpg
- File:Reclining Madrone.jpg
- File:Window (mezzotint).jpg
- File:Worlds Fastest (mezzotint).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Elisfkc (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I see your concern. However, here are several important points. The GH Rothe Estate is directed and managed by her son, Peter Rothe, with whom I've had several interactions over the last year. The Estate is in the process of reviewing their website: www.peter-rothe.squarespace.com
I am writing the article of GH Rothe for Wikipedia, after having talked to Peter several times and after seeing the most recent exhibition of a not very well-known, yet hugely important portion of her work exhibited at the Walter and McBean galleries in San Francisco: http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/reviews/gh-rothe/
I uploaded the images, with Peter's permission, onto Wikimedia, in order to be able to use them for the article that is currently being reviewed by Wikipedia. Please let me know if there are any more concerns with this, or how would I be able to prove that I indeed have Peter Rothe's permission (the owner of the images). --Juanppacheco (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Juanppacheco: the best way to prove this unequivocally is through the OTRS system. That way we can make sure everything is in order. Elisfkc (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Source does not link to images and site has a clear copyright tag on each page.
Ww2censor (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, Delete per Commons:Nudity, especially COM:PORN. Elisfkc (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not clear what the copyright status of these images is but they are likely still in copyright and while they are on Flickr under a free licence in this source album that states they are from an art collection of works by w:Bassel Khartabil there is no evidence the artist actually released them under a free license despite him having been in jail before his death. In this image File:Bassel Khartabil (Safadi).jpg he is wearing a Creative Commons t-shirt and there are Creative Commons and Wikimedia Foundation references of support for him in his enwiki article w:Bassel Khartabil. I think we need some better verification than the photographer's free license such as an heirs verification.
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Deformity-Bassel-6-17-15.jpg
- File:Resurrection-Bassel-7-10-15.jpg
- File:Uncertain-Dream-Bassel-6-15-15.jpg
- File:Uneasiness-Bassel-7-11-15.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep They are freely licensed, as he licensed all of his work. Confirmed per their recipient, who is the photographer. We can ask his widow for confirmation. --SJ+ 15:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed, getting confirmation would really be the best as there is no actual evidence the images are freely licensed. But make sure that she realises that under a free license anyone can use the images for any purposes, even making money by selling them. Ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence that the Flickr license covers the art. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Restored: as pr [5]. Yann (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This nomination is for several reasons. Without each artist's permission, these are COM:COPYVIOs. Additionally, promotional or self-promotional uploads of art, photographs of a gallery, various performance art and 3'd art as well as personal photographs are out of scope.
- File:Curating an international exhibition. 2001.jpg
- File:Asleep nun.jpg
- File:Model for The Heart House.jpg
- File:"Heart and soul" Exhibition view.jpg
- File:Jean Genet Model.jpg
- File:Performance "Holidays".jpg
- File:Ellas. Exhibition view.jpg
- File:Performance 2014.jpg
- File:ARCO. 2010.jpg
- File:Artist nude. 2008.jpg
- File:Nudes. Exhibition view.jpg
- File:From the serie "Nudes".jpg
- File:Untitled. supermarket bags.jpg
- File:Making love. Exhibition view.jpg
- File:Making love. Work in progress.jpg
- File:Holes exhibition view 2.jpg
- File:Holes exhibition view.jpg
- File:All is done. Wall installation.jpg
- File:Installation at Chelsea College.jpg
- File:Caja Madrid Prize. 2006.jpg
- File:Hellen's yawn. 2000.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Professorkool (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional uploads appended to article without references, but which states how to buy this person's books in the first paragraph. Out of COM:SCOPE, Commons isn't here to advertise your self-published works, try Facebook.
- File:-5 The Retaliator (Cover Page).png
- File:-4 The Professor's Enemy (Cover Page).png
- File:-3 Azula's Fate (Cover Page).png
- File:-2 Virus Fighters (Cover Page).jpg
- File:-1 Party at The Professor's Lab (Cover Page).jpg
- File:Volume 1 Front Cover.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on these images, very small, no metadata, some are copies of each other.
- File:Thai boxing.jpg
- File:Wing tsun.jpg
- File:Mundje1.jpg
- File:Wing chun teknika.jpg
- File:Mundje.jpg
- File:Teknika e thai boxing.jpg
- File:Remzije.jpg
- File:Suip.jpg
- File:Received 1700262113579755.jpg
- File:Foto trening.jpg
- File:TRAINING.jpg
- File:TRENING.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
An unused composite of unattributed images, is out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FagnerMaximo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Own work claim on official files unlikely. User has also uploaded at least one evidenced copyvio and two suspected.
Basvb (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FagnerMaximo (talk · contribs)
[edit]All these images are claimed to be own work. At first glance, these appear to be Currency, however searching the images, none of this appears to be real currency. They were found in prior use at http://fagnermaximosilveira.blogspot.com/2016/05/cedulas-snp-no-dia-08-de-abril-durante.html which seems to be an art project page of some sort. The last image is not a selfie, but also claimed own work.
- File:002 BALSEMÃO RS.jpg
- File:001 BALSEMÃO RS.jpg
- File:001 numismatica italiana 001 B.jpg
- File:001 numismatica italiana 001 A.jpg
- File:CEDULA B.jpg
- File:CEDULA A.jpg
- File:10 CASTILHOS 002.jpg
- File:10 CASTILHOS 001.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 100 02.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 100 01.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 050 02.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 050 01.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 010 02.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 010 01.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 005 02.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 005 01.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 001 02.jpg
- File:CEDULAS SNP 2016 001 01.jpg
- File:Medalha - Reverso.jpg
- File:Medalha 25 anos SNP - verso.jpg
- File:Capacete de mineiro - xilogravura.jpg
- File:FAGNER 07.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Used on promotional userpage on enwiki; no encyclopedic value TJH2018talk 23:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't imagine how this file could be used educationally. It and the uploader's username also imply some connection to Donald Trump. KSFT (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%8D%C3%B1igo_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Baptista.jpg MelRaNa (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
File was uploaded as "own work" and licensed using "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" which seems highly unlikely since the logo appears to be used the one officially used by Saipa Cultural & Sport Co. The logo is quite simple looking, but it's not clear if the design falls below the TOO for its country of origin Iran based upon the discussion at COM:VP/C#File:Saipa FC logo.png. If the logo can be clearly determined to be too simple for copyright protection, even for Iran, then the licensing should be changed to {{PD-simple}}. If there are any doubts, then per COM:PCP the file should be treated as fair use and deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Fake and poor-quality reproduction of a sign (better recreated at the files contained in Category:Old signs of Santiago Metro stations) and also, the Puente Cal y Canto never used a green sign Sfs90 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
possibly above threshold of originality 173.55.239.44 01:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Uploaded as "own work" which seems highly unlikely since it is being used as the official logo of Azadegan League. Country of origin seems to be Iran, and it's not clear whether this is above the country's COM:TOO#Iran. Unless this can be clearly established as "PD-Simple" and being below Iran's TOO, I think it should be treated as fair use per COM:PCP and deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
non partage Caperstan (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
possibly above threshold of originality 173.55.239.44 02:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Against : Contains the arabic letter أ and a simple text in arabic and french — Sincerely Issimo 15 21:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: text logo. --INeverCry 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
possibly above threshold of originality 173.55.239.44 02:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Against : simple shapes with an arabic + french text — Sincerely Issimo 15 16:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: text logo. --INeverCry 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
possibly above threshold of originality maybe complex logo 173.55.239.44 02:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This user has requested for deletion a number of logos using the same argument. These logos are in the public domain. They contain simple shapes / text. — Sincerely Issimo 15 21:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Weak oppose Per Commons:Threshold of originality. Simple arrangement of circles and alphabetical letters do not exceed the threshold of originality to be covered by copyright, and certainly not so in United States. I shall note that Algeria doesn't have official decisions on threshold of originality. 80.221.159.67 03:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: text logo. --INeverCry 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
droit d'auteur Caperstan (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Not usable in commons or any other wikimedia projects. Nahid Hossain (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This is pretty clearly out of scope, or it will be within the next few hours. The pages that are currently using this image will likely be speedily deleted per Wikipedia's Criteria for Speedy Deletion. (See w:en:WP:SPEEDY for English Wikipedia's CSD.) Gestrid (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Åbo Nation is a student union governed by the University Act and not a municipality. Derivative works are subject to the same copying conditions as original works. Student union CoAs are not eligible for Template:PD-Coa-Finland, as they are not part of public government. See Commons:Undeletion requests#File:KSO vaakuna.png for related discussion. At very least OTRS permission would be required. 80.221.159.67 05:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Info Previously nominated for speedy deletion for same reason, with template removed by User:Jcb for "Not a copyright violation". 80.221.159.67 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
{vk}- contrary to what nominator suggests, there is no PD-Coa-Finland claimed for this file. Uploader declares it was self-made. Please tell us why you think this is not self-made? Jcb (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: I can believe that it is self-made by uploader, but Commons:Derivative works applies. It is also lacking substantially new creative work to be considered a new work with new license. There is no known permission from original work copyright holder, as the original work is not believed to be covered by PD-Coa-Finland. 80.221.159.67 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- That depends a lot on what the original work looks like and what similarities there are. When I entered the site, I only saw a very small, but different, coat of arms. Do you have a link to the file you think this is a DW from? That will be helpful to judge whether this is a copyright violation or not. Jcb (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: I see the coat of arms that you see to be the same in context, if only vectorized by uploader in inferior quality. The Åbo Nation's logo on the website in header seems to be very similar to me as well, and might be higher resolution.
Info The website was apparently previously hosted and maintained on Helsinki.fi's server ([6], Wayback Machine capture from 2005). The old Helsinki.fi page also holds a copyright notice Copyright © 2001-2008 Åbo Nation
. 80.221.159.67 17:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC) (edited: 17:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC))
Info Åbo Nation's Twitter profile image displays a high resolution image for comparison. It's essentially the same, given understanding on inferior quality in vectorization. 17:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
−
- (edit conflict) I see, with the archive.org version it's more clear to be a DW. Delete then. Jcb (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
self-promotion C3r4 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Even if this would be true, it is still relevant photo of Husnija Topić. --romanm (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. --INeverCry 23:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted software screenshot. MKFI (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I own the software and copyright and release this picture under the CC license. Phaseri 13:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Phaseri: do you mean that you own a copy of the software, or that you are the publisher/developer? If the latter, please send OTRS permission. MKFI (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- @MKFI: I made the software and am the sole developer. I now sent the OTRS to the email address mentioned in the OTRS article. Phaseri 17 September 2016
Kept: otrs. --INeverCry 23:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Diese Datei wurde doppelt hochgeladen MarcWN (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Diese Datei wird nicht im Artikel von Kurt Ader verwendet MarcWN (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Diese Datei wird nicht verwendet, kann gelöscht werden. MarcWN (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Diese Datei kann gelöscht werden, wird nicht benötigt. MarcWN (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No permission. Allan Phillips is not the photographer, his two hands are holding the award. Castillo blanco (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Too blurry for identifying. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As much as I understand, depicted person is not mentioned in en.wiki. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Wrong formula, probably resulting from a wrong PubChem-ID in the german article. The ID has been corrected (16768902). Nothingserious (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I was wrong, there is an error in the PubChem entry, the formula is correct. --Nothingserious (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep What the hell, how does CID 16768902 even closely resemble a fentanyl analogue? The thiafentanil structure is the one mentioned in the Federal Register... Aethyta (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, CID 16768902 turns up when you search for Thiafentanil or A-3080, both names are listed under synonyms for this compound. I reported it to the helpdesk. --Nothingserious (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The formula is NOT Thiafentanyl. As I explained before, the patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4584303.PN.&OS=PN/4584303&RS=PN/4584303 shows the synthesis of the stuff and any organic chemist can see, that the structure in this file cannot be formed by any of the described reactions. I've mentioned the wrong structure to PubMed. I guess they've used a structure-for-name generator and the program mistook "N-phenylmethoxyacetamido" for the O-benzyl hydroxylamine. But the methoxy group is situated at the methyl group of the acetic acid, not between the nitrogen and the benzene ring. Further, no O-benzyl hydroxylamine is mentioned in the whole text of the patent AND such a group would NOT withstand a reduction by sodium boranate. AND this structure here rather far away from common fentanyl analogues. It won't work as an opioid.
Citation: EXAMPLE XV To a stirred solution of 36.5 g of 1-benzyl-4-(N-phenylamino)-4-(methoxycarbonyl)piperidine in 200 ml of toluene, 14.6 g of methoxyacetyl chloride is added, followed by 22 ml of triethylamine. The reaction mixture is stirred for 5 days and 100 ml of 10% sodium hydroxide is added. After stirring overnight, the product is extracted with toluene, dried and flash evaporated to yield 51.1 g of an oil. The 1-benzyl-4-methoxycarbonyl-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)piperidine is separated from the starting material using a Waters Associates Prep LC/System 500 and a PrepPAK-500/SILICA column (1:1 ethyl acetate:hexane). THe pure fraction is collected and the eluent is evaporated to give 1-benzyl-4-methoxycarbonyl-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)piperidine. This is a similar compound (1-Benzyl instead of 1-(2-thienyl)ethyl). The structure formed in this way is clear. And now, I wish you to read the patent. --FK1954 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Concerning the Federal register: just a few letters missing... (4-(methoxycarbonyl)-4-(N-phenmethoxyacetamido)-1-[2-(thienyl)ethyl]piperidine) should be (4-(methoxycarbonyl)-4-(N-phenyl-N-methoxyacetamido)-1-[2-(thienyl)ethyl]piperidine). Just draw this and you'll have the correct molecule. --FK1954 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Makes sense. But we have a serious problem for the COM:EDUSE here. We can't use "we know what DEA meant" to alter their statements or force a "correct" interpretation of their terminology without some other even better source. And patents are not "reliable sources" for encyclopedia content (en:WP:RS) except to the extent of "what they claim" (which is weaker than "a chemical fact"), but we can use their chemistry to make a logical analysis of what they claim. And we also have a problem that the patent does not seem to mention "fentanil" or "A-3080"...for purposes of encyclopedia articles, we need actual reliable sources that tie the terminology together. DMacks (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, maybe that the patent is not reliable. But it is just the source PubChem uses. The chemical procedure as described in the patent does without any doubt NOT give a benzyl hydroxylamine derivative as shown in the PubChem article. The patent describes ONLY N-aryl-4-aminopiperidines and no O-benzylhydroxylamines. --FK1954 (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing that it is not already mentioned here, this source should probably be considered, too. --Nothingserious (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think I know what happened: somebody uses a formula generator. If you feed it with "1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]-4-methoxycarbonyl-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)piperidine" the program interpretes "N-phenylmethoxyacetamido" as C6H5-CH2-O-N-COCH3. If you feed the generator with "N-phenyl-N-methoxyacetamido" it should give the correct structure C6H5-N-COCH2-O-CH3 (a methoxyacetamide of an aniline). I don't have such a program so I can't test it. --FK1954 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is what Chemdoodle generates: Dropbox. --Nothingserious (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong. Which name did you use?) --FK1954 (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- 1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]-4-methoxycarbonyl-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)piperidine. --Nothingserious (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well thanks a lot! Downloaded ChemDoodle and tried.. You have to add only ONE sign "-" between "Phenyl" and "Methoxy" to get the correct structure... 1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]-4-methoxycarbonyl-4-(N-phenyl-methoxyacetamido)piperidine. Just one missing "-" to produce a lot of confusion. --FK1954 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- File: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bu097rk8l4arajv/1-%5B2-%282-thienyl%29ethyl%5D-4-methoxycarbonyl-4-%28N-phenyl-methoxyacetamido%29piperidine%20.png?dl=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FK1954 (talk • contribs)
- Well thanks a lot! Downloaded ChemDoodle and tried.. You have to add only ONE sign "-" between "Phenyl" and "Methoxy" to get the correct structure... 1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]-4-methoxycarbonyl-4-(N-phenyl-methoxyacetamido)piperidine. Just one missing "-" to produce a lot of confusion. --FK1954 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- 1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]-4-methoxycarbonyl-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)piperidine. --Nothingserious (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think I know what happened: somebody uses a formula generator. If you feed it with "1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]-4-methoxycarbonyl-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)piperidine" the program interpretes "N-phenylmethoxyacetamido" as C6H5-CH2-O-N-COCH3. If you feed the generator with "N-phenyl-N-methoxyacetamido" it should give the correct structure C6H5-N-COCH2-O-CH3 (a methoxyacetamide of an aniline). I don't have such a program so I can't test it. --FK1954 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing that it is not already mentioned here, this source should probably be considered, too. --Nothingserious (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, maybe that the patent is not reliable. But it is just the source PubChem uses. The chemical procedure as described in the patent does without any doubt NOT give a benzyl hydroxylamine derivative as shown in the PubChem article. The patent describes ONLY N-aryl-4-aminopiperidines and no O-benzylhydroxylamines. --FK1954 (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete by the reasoning provided by FK1954. --Leyo 20:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete see above. --Nothingserious (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --INeverCry 23:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This mural was installed after March 1989, per COM:PACUSA. See [7]. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
bad quality : see file:Château de Tourville (5).jpg for better image (I'm the author of the two photos) Xfigpower (pssst) 12:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
It could be argued that this image is PD-TEXT even though it's taken from smrt.com.sg, but I say that a calendar of public events in Singapore for June-December 2010, along with details of which subway station provdes the best access thereto, is not within project scope. DS (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- This also applies to many of the uploader's other images: File:EventnearCCLstn.jpg , File:Toevent.jpg, and File:Toevents.jpg. (The user has still more images which are charts copied wholesale from smrt.com.sg, but those -- it could be argued -- do fall within project scope.) DS (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PhilipMillsUK (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- All the information provided by me was on the career of my father: John Robert Mills. The information is my own work and checked with members of my family. All the photos were copies of photos in the possession of my Mother - wife of John Robert Mills. PhilipMillsUK (talk · contribs)
- Seems a pionneer of radars and radio-navigational aids, worthy to be in Commons. As for the copyright status, it has to be vetted by Commons. Pierre cb (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- In this case text belong to Wikipedia. Photos should uploaded separately with proper source information and permissions (if needed). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is not infringe the right of publicity. Nakanishi has become a frequent target of attack. アルトクール (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is not infringe the right of publicity. Nakanishi has become a frequent target of attack. アルトクール (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Techyan as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://movie.douban.com/celebrity/1358029/
Add: Maybe a copy from commons? - no speedy delete. Wdwd (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I found the description "敏迷族粉絲側拍", shows that this photo may be taken by other fans. So I am doubting that this photo wasn't taken by the uploader. --Techyan（Talk） 07:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. --INeverCry 23:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No proof of this image being in public domain Coderzombie (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then I believe I can get a letter of authorization of the image from the person who owns the copyright and is ready to release it and send it to Wikipedia, is that okay? Paperpopscissors (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- You can read WP:OTRS on how to authorize images for use. Coderzombie (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Note that the license must come directly to OTRS from the photographer -- you can not forward it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No source to base the license upon. In the description, there is a PD-1923 claim, but no indication that this Irish picture was first published in the US. Then there is a license template telling that the author has died more than 100 years ago, but with no author information available, this is no more than a wild guess. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Reduntant file. This image is more efficiently saved in the JPEG format (File:Ubuntu-Mate-Cold.jpg) as it consist of photographic data, which should be kept around for thumbnails. The XCF version (File:Ubuntu-Mate-Cold.xcf) is also lossless like this PNG file, but also retains the layers and information how the image was produced, so the XCF version should be kept for lossless edits. There is no or very little benefit of keeping this PNG version available on Commons, and no WMF-project pages depend on it. See Commons:File types for more information on these file types. WubTheCaptain (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photos, or insufficient description Pippobuono (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photos, and probably (bad) photoshop Pippobuono (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
An unused bar chart seems to be out of COM:SCOPE was uploaded three years ago. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
An unused apparently personal image, without category. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused diagram, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
If this is indeed a representative of some real-world award, one would assume there would be a source other than 'own work'... as it is, the image is unused, uncategorized and apparently not educational. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
An unused diagram, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
An unused diagram with no source is out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
An unused diagram, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused diagram credited to some people but uploaded by someone else. Out of COM:SCOPE for lack of educational utility. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Copied from WikiCommons, see File:Araujo Centenario.jpg, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
An unused group shot of four guys outside a store, is the size of Facebook pictures (960x...) and has no metadata. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
This image is in use on a user page which has not been active in a long time. It apparenly has no soucr. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Small unused image, uncategorized, and no location. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Small unused image with no metadata, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused, unneeded text only image which could be recreated in text easily. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused, text only document which could be replaced by typing. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused image with little description and no category, out of COM:SCOPE not educational. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused architectural rendering, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
An image of a walkway and a door, without description, location or category... unused, not educational and out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused diagram, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
With the amount of pixelation in the image, "own work" is extremely unlikely. Also not in use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused image, no category, no apparent educational utility, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused image, no category, no location, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused diagram, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused diagram out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No evidence that this is work of NASA (and thus that this is public domain): source provided is just webpage from manufacturer. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused diagram out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused text only image, which could be recreated by typing at any time it was needed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused diagram, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused image of a building with no location or category, out of COM:SCOPE as it is lacking in educational utility. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused diagram, out of COM:SCOPE for lack of educational utility. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
A series of signatures cannot be own work, but are unused for several years, unlikely to be of educational utility and are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
A series of signatures cannot be own work, but are unused for several years, unlikely to be of educational utility and are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Image is not in use, and lack of metadata calls into question "own work". Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused image, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused image of dog and dog bowl, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This image is unused, and also has a really large copy of an unsourced image right behind the three gents in orange. If this had been educational, I'd think it would have been placed in use during the last five years, but as it has not been, it would appear to be out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This image looks promotional especially when viewed with the rest of Sittaproperty's uploads. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional image for a property company, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional image for a property company, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional image for a property company, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional image for a property company, out of COM:SCOPE. Also please notice metadata "Author Diwhuafoo@Copyright holder THE_BLUE", so possible COM:COPYVIO as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This image is stated to be from the 1930s and then claimed as own work which seems highly unlikely. More information is needed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This unused and uncategorized image looks like a rephotograph of something else. Even so it's out of COM:SCOPE for a lack of educational utiltiy. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional or self promotional image of some art with contact information, out of COM:SCOPE and likely to be COM:COPYVIO as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional or self promotional image of some art, out of COM:SCOPE and likely to be COM:COPYVIO as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, one of two uploads Pibwl (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Pibwl (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
out of scope Pibwl (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Pibwl-2016-09-14T18:04:00.000Z-File:Compañeros_con_"derechos".png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:01:00.000Z-File:Compañeros_con_"derechos".png){kind=link}
Unused, uncategorized, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Either this is someone's art from 1980 or it's own work of the uploader, it can't be both. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Does not look like selfie. Small photo without metadata, probably copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely claim of own work on this 1955 family image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image of foot in shoe... Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Love8~commonswiki (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except two userpages (both in fr.wiki) and uploading two photos about herself (one now deleted), which are used nowhere, except on the userpages. All her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
possible copyvio or non free photo 173.55.239.44 19:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image. It may be of the uploader. If so, then since it is not a selfie, it is also a violation of the photographer's copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
copyvio photo 173.55.239.44 19:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Better image in higher quality available,which i will upload. Doqu1711 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Better image in higher quality available which I will upload. Doqu1711 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused screenshot of little educational value, out of scope. Many other screenshots already available. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional poster of non-notable event, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Promotional screenshot of some website, I'm not sure what makes this idiot think anyone would buy chocolates JUST from looking at a picture!!, Either way it serves no purpose here although it does makes me want to eat some chocolate now :) –Davey2010Talk 20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Gif that serves no purpose here –Davey2010Talk 20:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Atlético Atro 1
[edit]Derivatives, not own work, and an unused personal image of a non-notable team.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused diagram with little educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
useless damaged photo Pibwl (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No such flag for an Arizona Republic; as a fake flag this falls outside of the educational mission of Commons. Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Based on the actual seal of the actual state of Arizona, but purportedly reimagined as the seal of non-existent "Republic de Arizona". As a hoax/falsehood, this falls outside of the educational mission of Commons Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional logo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused and unusable tiny personal image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The description says that this is a "proposed political territory/republic", yet there are no sources, reliable or otherwise, for the declaration of such an entity. As a hoax, this falls outside of the educational mission of Commons. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional logo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:NeuroMat logos and banners
[edit]This .svg file has a bad transparency and a newer and corrected version was uploaded by the same uploader.
- File:Logo - Neuromat - Horizontal - EN 01.svg
- File:Logo - Neuromat - Horizontal - EN 02.svg
- File:Logo - Neuromat - Horizontal - EN 03.svg
- File:Logo - Neuromat - Horizontal - EN 04.svg
- File:Logo - Neuromat - Horizontal - EN 05.svg
- File:NeuroMat logo horizontal.jpg
- File:NeuroMat logo license.png
- File:NeuroMat logo squared.png
Horadrim (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Is that game copyrighted or under free license? Is it within scope? Sanandros (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. --INeverCry 00:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused crop of File:" SHAHENSHA E UMARKHED HAZRAT TATAR SHAH BABA رحمت اللہ علیہ ".jpg. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:06:00.000Z-File:Hazrat_TATAR_Shah_Baba"_رحمت_اللہ_علیہ.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:Hazrat_TATAR_Shah_Baba"_رحمت_اللہ_علیہ.jpg){kind=link}
Unused photograph, perhaps personal because of the English description. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:06:00.000Z-File:"A_call_to_humanity"_number_1.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"A_call_to_humanity"_number_1.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:07:00.000Z-File:"Carehue".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"Carehue".jpg){kind=link}
File:"Estatua Orante de Juan de Padilla en su arco sepulcral procedente de Fres del Val" al Mueso Provincial de Burgos..jpg
[edit]
This image appears to be copied from a publication and not own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Screenshots from Wikipedia are unnecessary as anyone can use the HISTORY feature to find/reproduce the text at any date or time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:11:00.000Z-File:"Facets"_Citations.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"Facets"_Citations.png){kind=link}
A 1974 article would not be out of copyright in 2016. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:13:00.000Z-File:"Memories_of_Kermarji".png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"Memories_of_Kermarji".png){kind=link}
A 1974 article is not yet out of copyright in 2016. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:13:00.000Z-File:"Memories_of_Kumarji".png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"Memories_of_Kumarji".png){kind=link}
An unused image of two colors, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:14:00.000Z-File:"Mi_Ma_Oss".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"Mi_Ma_Oss".jpg){kind=link}
An unused image of two colors, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
An unused image of two colors, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
A very small and unused family picture appears to be out of COM:SCOPE for lack of educational utility. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Output from "WriterTools" labeled "TM" but then also claimed as own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:26:00.000Z-File:"Text's_Topology".png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"Text's_Topology".png){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE due to poor quality. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:28:00.000Z-File:"Waving_House".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"Waving_House".jpg){kind=link}
COM:OTRS from Peter Voight would be needed to retain this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused image of very poor quality, and small size likely copied from somewhere else. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:29:00.000Z-File:"Євромайдан"_у_Валенсії.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"Євромайдан"_у_Валенсії.jpg){kind=link}
The overprinting in the upper left hand corner and the letterboxing suggest this was copied without attribution and is a COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:37:00.000Z-File:"Савич_парк".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-INeverCry-2016-09-21T00:06:00.000Z-File:"Савич_парк".jpg){kind=link}
Unused, one page of a 1917 book. No apparent educational utility. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Motivational posters are out of COM:SCOPE... this would be great on your Facebook or Deviant Art pages. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Ukraine - modern monument INeverCry 02:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The murals in Belfast are currently subject to the United Kingdom jurisdiction. The murals may be copyrighted (and would be covered up someday). George Ho (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Do we know if it's considered graffiti or artwork? if it's graffiti (i.e., unauthorized and illegally applied) then per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Graffiti we can keep it. Otherwise it falls under freedom of panorama; the UK does not allow for FoP for 2D artworks. Tabercil (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This is partisan graffiti by the Ulster Young Militants (UYM), a loyalist paramilitary/terrorist group that's part of the Ulster Defence Association (other examples of this graffiti can be seen in both articles). INeverCry 23:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem or stated source. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: See http://www.315aw.afrc.af.mil/News/Art/tabid/915/igphoto/2000557033/Default.aspx. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem or stated source. Compare The Institute of Heraldry and Aviano Air Base web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: see www.aviano.af.mil. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete Speedy delete. We have to use speedy delete for images like this. Luispihormiguero (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osmanti Avila.jpg) -- Common Good (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Philippines. Building from 2007 according to en:TriNoma. Stefan4 (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Note: Transferred to enwiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Recent Comment: please restore only both the 2010 file by TheCoffee and the 2016 file by Lawrence ruiz. The 2008 file by GoblinTech~commonswiki under this very same file name is a copyvio. Comment added by _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Concerned that the photo of this building - which is very recent, and the photo is focused on the building - may violate the architect's copyright according to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Philippines Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also noting for me that the ShadowsCommons tag will need to be removed from en:File:TriNoma.jpg if this is deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, I do not understand how this photo was nominated for deletion in violation of Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Philippines when another similar photo by Judgefloro has long been uploaded in Creative Commons but has not been deleted. Kindly enlighten me on this matter. Thank you. — Lawrence ruiz (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am guessing that nobody has seen that file yet and nominated it for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- But again, Jo-Jo Eumerus, how does my photo violate Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Philippines? Kindly enlighten me on this matter. Thank you. — Lawrence ruiz (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Because there is no evidence that you have the permission of the architect(s) to make a photography and tag it as free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, Republic Act 8293 does not specify any prohibition regarding taking photos of copyrighted works such as architectural works. From my interpretation of the law, there is freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Lawrence ruiz (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like this may be a case of "freedom of panorama" is not explicitly stated but exists anyway by virtue of "derivative work" being interpreted narrowly - this archived copy of the law does not mention any freedom of panorama, but then nor does Chapter III (the part which talks about derivative works) mention photographies of architecture or anything that sounds like a copyright claim on photos to me. Something for Commons talk:Freedom of panorama or COM:VPC, probably. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, I do not understand how this photo was nominated for deletion in violation of Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Philippines when another similar photo by Judgefloro has long been uploaded in Creative Commons but has not been deleted. Kindly enlighten me on this matter. Thank you. — Lawrence ruiz (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The copyright laws of about half of all countries do not mention FOP. Since FOP is an exception to the general rule that derivative works of copyrighted works infringe on the copyright, lack of mention of it means that the general rule applies. We do not keep images of copyrighted works from countries that do not have applicable FOP.
Section III of the Philippine law, cited above, refers to copyrights on certain derivative works -- it says nothing about whether a DW infringes. That is called out at 171.9,
- "Reproduction" is the making of one (1) or more copies of a work or a sound recording in any manner or form.
and Sec. 177:
- Copy or Economic Rights. - Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts:
- 177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;.
- Copy or Economic Rights. - Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts:
Read together, the definition of "reproduction" and the breadth of 177.1 make it clear that DWs, including this one, infringe.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Doctor Who logos
[edit]All of these are UK logos which has an exceedingly low TOO. Pretty sure we can't keep any of these but please check my work.
- File:Doctor Who logo 1963-1967.jpg
- File:Doctor Who logo 1967-1969.jpg
- File:Doctor Who logo 1970-1973, 1996.svg
- File:Doctor Who logo 1970-1973.jpg
- File:Doctor Who logo 1973-1980.svg
- File:Doctor Who Logo 1973-1980.svg
- File:Doctor Who logo 1974-1980.png
- File:Doctor Who logo 1980-1984.svg
- File:Doctor Who logo 1984-1986.svg
- File:Doctor Who logo 1987-1989.svg
- File:Doctor Who logo 2005 (1).svg
- File:Doctor Who logo 2010.svg
- File:Doctor Who logo 2012 background.svg
- File:Doctor Who logo 2014.jpg
- File:Doctor who titre par un fan.png
- File:Logo 50e anniversary Doctor Who.png
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Majora (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all of them on procedural grounds: there's a huge difference between File:Doctor Who logo 1963-1967.jpg and File:Logo 50e anniversary Doctor Who.png, for example, and they need to be renominated immediately for DR separately so we can handle them separately. In particular, deleting 1963-1967 on copyright grounds would be extreme: it's literally nine characters in a basic sans-serif font, presented in the simplest manner possible, and they're plain white letters on a plain black rectangular background. They're literally no more original than the words "DOCTOR WHO" typed in black in a serif font on a white background: if this file's image is a copyright infringement, the filename itself is a copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I lumped those in with the others because of the UK court ruling that said this text only logo was copyrightable. If that is copyrightable so are those Doctor Who ones. Some of these are also blatant copyright infringement. The only reason I put them all here instead of just tagging them with {{Logo}} was to give people time to reupload them locally if they wish to do so. Saying that we should keep them, even procedurally, just to renominate them is a little bureaucratic and frankly a waste of time and space (doctor who pun intended). It would take all of 10 minutes over the seven day period this DR will be open to take a look at the logos and definitively say which ones need to go. In my opinion, the extremely low TOO in the UK, as evident by the EDGE decision, makes all of these potentially copyrightable and therefore they need to be deleted. --Majora (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The "Edge" image, at least, features a little stylization of the image: it's not merely an ordinary typeface. Some of these are ordinary typefaces; 1967-1969, for example, is a black rectangle featuring "Doctor" in white 80-point Times New Roman, and "Who" is the same thing in 130-point. Presumably The Times was writing about this series between 1967 and 1969, when they were still using this font; this image is exactly a reversed-color version of what would be found in one of their columns if printed at this high resolution. Would the BBC have had grounds to sue them for copyright infringement because they printed the words "Doctor Who" in their standard font? Does using a larger font, or reversing colors from black-on-white to white-on-black, cause something PD-simple to become copyrightable in the UK? And finally, my comments equally apply to the first image; I just don't know immediately what the font is, so I can't use it as an example. Once again, nominate these images separately please; my wholesale "keep" is due to the fact that these aren't all in the same situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I lumped those in with the others because of the UK court ruling that said this text only logo was copyrightable. If that is copyrightable so are those Doctor Who ones. Some of these are also blatant copyright infringement. The only reason I put them all here instead of just tagging them with {{Logo}} was to give people time to reupload them locally if they wish to do so. Saying that we should keep them, even procedurally, just to renominate them is a little bureaucratic and frankly a waste of time and space (doctor who pun intended). It would take all of 10 minutes over the seven day period this DR will be open to take a look at the logos and definitively say which ones need to go. In my opinion, the extremely low TOO in the UK, as evident by the EDGE decision, makes all of these potentially copyrightable and therefore they need to be deleted. --Majora (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Nyttend. Hektor (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Going off the basic understanding that simple words in a single font w/o embellishment are under UK's TOO, the following should be kept:
- Doctor Who logo 1963-1967.jpg
- Doctor Who logo 1967-1969.jpg
- Doctor Who logo 2014.jpg
- Separately, Doctor Who logo 2005 (1).svg might be okay as it is a simple font (the bullet a character in that font) and the shape rather simple, comparable to the various BBC logos.
- Most of the remaining images have enough creativity in them that they should be moved to en.wiki under a PD-US template (which the Doctor Who project is now aware of this issue and would probably help to remedy quickly). However, I do have concerns on the metal-sheen look on Doctor Who logo 1970-1973.jpg that may make that ineligible for PD-US (it would have to be used as non-free), and similar for Doctor Who logo 2012 background.svg . However, those are questions that on uploading can be fixed at en.wiki. --Masem (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept the first two, but not 2014 -- remember that the UK also has a 25 year copyright on typography, so anything but the simplest typesetting is copyrighted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This might be art, but we don't have the name or permission from the artist, it's blurry, it's not in use and it's not categorized. It would seem to not be educational in scope. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![23:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-09-14T23:05:00.000Z-File:"_fune_d'acciaio_".jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I do not agree, there could be a educational use, as far as it is said to be the section of a steel cable in use in the mines. But it is really blurry, so... might be conserved till something more neat be uploaded. Pippobuono (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: It's in a correct cat and shows cable construction pretty well -- not perfect, but many of our images are not. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
![13:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/14#c-Jameslwoodward-2016-09-21T13:08:00.000Z-File:"_fune_d'acciaio_".jpg){kind=link}
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem or stated source. Compare The Institute of Heraldry and Aviano Air Base web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem rather pointless to me (as discussed at length on the User Problems board). If Jcb could point to a specific concrete problem with this particular image, that would be quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention a 'specific concrete problem' in the deletion rational: we don't have source information with which we can verify that this is indeed an 'official U.S. military emblem'. Could as well be a hobby creation. We delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/coats every year. Your keep vote should address the deletion rational rather than addressing the nominator. Your current keep vote is quite worthless, because you fail to come with a real argument. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: It is the official emblem, see the source. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem or stated source. Compare The Institute of Heraldry and Aviano Air Base web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem rather pointless to me (as discussed at length on the User Problems board). If Jcb could point to a specific concrete problem with this particular image, that would be quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention a 'specific concrete problem' in the deletion rational: we don't have source information with which we can verify that this is indeed an 'official U.S. military emblem'. Could as well be a hobby creation. We delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/coats every year. Your keep vote should address the deletion rational rather than addressing the nominator. Your current keep vote is quite worthless, because you fail to come with a real argument. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
still unsourced - previous closure does not address the nomination Jcb (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Please see the valid U.S. Air Force Website source now appended to image. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem or stated source. Compare The Institute of Heraldry and Aviano Air Base web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem rather pointless to me (as discussed at length on the User Problems board). If Jcb could point to a specific concrete problem with this particular image, that would be quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention a 'specific concrete problem' in the deletion rational: we don't have source information with which we can verify that this is indeed an 'official U.S. military emblem'. Could as well be a hobby creation. We delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/coats every year. Your keep vote should address the deletion rational rather than addressing the nominator. Your current keep vote is quite worthless, because you fail to come with a real argument. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
still unsourced - previous closure does not address the nomination Jcb (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: I appended source to the image. It's U.S. Air Force Website. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem. Compare The Institute of Heraldry and Aviano Air Base web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem rather pointless to me (as discussed at length on the User Problems board). If Jcb could point to a specific concrete problem with this particular image, that would be quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention a 'specific concrete problem' in the deletion rational: we don't have source information with which we can verify that this is indeed an 'official U.S. military emblem'. Could as well be a hobby creation. We delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/coats every year. Your keep vote should address the deletion rational rather than addressing the nominator. Your current keep vote is quite worthless, because you fail to come with a real argument. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
still unsourced - previous closure does not address the nomination Jcb (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- No it's not unsourced read the entire page and you will see that it was sourced until a bot stripped the source information from its proper location. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The bot removed "Transferred from en.wikipedia" from the source field, which is not a valid source of course. So no, the bot did not remove valid source information. It was absent from the beginning. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Jcb -- Are you begging to go back to the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems board for another round? Your actions are reminiscent of what many objected to during your last time there -- namely indiscriminate tagging of images without any due consideration for the individual characteristics of each specific image, and the context of what the de-facto enforcement customs on Commons were with respect to inherently public domain United States official military emblems and insignia at the time that the images were uploaded. My strong advice to you would be to just leave such images alone unless you can come up with a specific problem with a particular image (such as being hoaxing, grossly incorrect, etc), which does not include your overall general attempt to retroactively change the practices which applied to such images when they were originally uploaded... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The template used provides a source -- the Intitute of Heraldry which, despite being a US Army organization, actually provides heraldry to the other services as well. However, this image does not appear on the Instute's site, see http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/HeraldryList.aspx?CategoryId=333&grp=1&menu=Uniformed%20Services where it might be listed, but is not. An image that appears to be this one, but is a different size, appears at http://www.aviano.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/280377/31st-civil-engineer-squadron, which seems to me to provide adequate cover for both the "is this real" question and that it is PD. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem or stated source. Compare The Institute of Heraldry and Aviano Air Base web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem rather pointless to me (as discussed at length on the User Problems board). If Jcb could point to a specific concrete problem with this particular image, that would be quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention a 'specific concrete problem' in the deletion rational: we don't have source information with which we can verify that this is indeed an 'official U.S. military emblem'. Could as well be a hobby creation. We delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/coats every year. Your keep vote should address the deletion rational rather than addressing the nominator. Your current keep vote is quite worthless, because you fail to come with a real argument. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
still unsourced - previous closure does not address the nomination Jcb (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- No it's not unsourced read the entire page and you will see that it was sourced until a bot stripped the source information from its proper location. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The bot removed "Transferred from en.wikipedia" from the source field, which is not a valid source of course. So no, the bot did not remove valid source information. It was absent from the beginning. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Jcb -- Are you begging to go back to the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems board for another round? Your actions are reminiscent of what many objected to during your last time there -- namely indiscriminate tagging of images without any due consideration for the individual characteristics of each specific image, and the context of what the de-facto enforcement customs on Commons were with respect to inherently public domain United States official military emblems and insignia at the time that the images were uploaded. My strong advice to you would be to just leave such images alone unless you can come up with a specific problem with a particular image (such as being hoaxing, grossly incorrect, etc), which does not include your overall general attempt to retroactively change the practices which applied to such images when they were originally uploaded... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: added source. --Sanandros (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem or stated source. Compare The Institute of Heraldry and Aviano Air Base web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem rather pointless to me (as discussed at length on the User Problems board). If Jcb could point to a specific concrete problem with this particular image, that would be quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention a 'specific concrete problem' in the deletion rational: we don't have source information with which we can verify that this is indeed an 'official U.S. military emblem'. Could as well be a hobby creation. We delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/coats every year. Your keep vote should address the deletion rational rather than addressing the nominator. Your current keep vote is quite worthless, because you fail to come with a real argument. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
still unsourced - previous closure does not address the nomination Jcb (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No it's not unsourced read the entire page and you will see that it was sourced until a bot stripped the source information from its proper location. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The bot removed "Transferred from en.wikipedia" from the source field, which is not a valid source of course. So no, the bot did not remove valid source information. It was absent from the beginning. Jcb (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Jcb -- Are you begging to go back to the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems board for another round? Your actions are reminiscent of what many objected to during your last time there -- namely indiscriminate tagging of images without any due consideration for the individual characteristics of each specific image, and the context of what the de-facto enforcement customs on Commons were with respect to inherently public domain United States official military emblems and insignia at the time that the images were uploaded. My strong advice to you would be to just leave such images alone unless you can come up with a specific problem with a particular image (such as being hoaxing, grossly incorrect, etc), which does not include your overall general attempt to retroactively change the practices which applied to such images when they were originally uploaded... AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: added source. --Sanandros (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem or stated source. Compare The Institute of Heraldry and Aviano Air Base web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem rather pointless to me (as discussed at length on the User Problems board). If Jcb could point to a specific concrete problem with this particular image, that would be quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention a 'specific concrete problem' in the deletion rational: we don't have source information with which we can verify that this is indeed an 'official U.S. military emblem'. Could as well be a hobby creation. We delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/coats every year. Your keep vote should address the deletion rational rather than addressing the nominator. Your current keep vote is quite worthless, because you fail to come with a real argument. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
still unsourced - previous closure does not address the nomination Jcb (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No it's not unsourced read the entire page and you will see that it was sourced until a bot stripped the source information from its proper location.
- The bot removed "Transferred from en.wikipedia" from the source field, which is not a valid source of course. So no, the bot did not remove valid source information. It was absent from the beginning. Jcb (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Jcb -- Are you begging to go back to the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems board for another round? Your actions are reminiscent of what many objected to during your last time there -- namely indiscriminate tagging of images without any due consideration for the individual characteristics of each specific image, and the context of what the de-facto enforcement customs on Commons were with respect to inherently public domain United States official military emblems and insignia at the time that the images were uploaded. My strong advice to you would be to just leave such images alone unless you can come up with a specific problem with a particular image (such as being hoaxing, grossly incorrect, etc), which does not include your overall general attempt to retroactively change the practices which applied to such images when they were originally uploaded... AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: added a source. --Sanandros (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem rather pointless to me (as discussed at length on the User Problems board). If Jcb could point to a specific concrete problem with this particular image, that would be quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention a 'specific concrete problem' in the deletion rational: we don't have source information with which we can verify that this is indeed an 'official U.S. military emblem'. Could as well be a hobby creation. We delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/coats every year. Your keep vote should address the deletion rational rather than addressing the nominator. Your current keep vote is quite worthless, because you fail to come with a real argument. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Both the emblem itself and the picture of the 3D object still unsourced - previous closure does not address the nomination Jcb (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's a photograph of a U.S. government-designed and probably U.S. government-issued uniform patch. I don't know that it should be deleted, but it does raise issues that would not apply to a standard Army Institute of Heraldry drawing -- not that you have discussed such issues in any meaningful or useful way (instead just mechanically repeating your unchanging "sourcing" mantra). AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- This was clearly produced for the US Gov, specifically the USAAF during WWII, making it PD. I've fixed the source and year blocks. PumpkinSky talk 12:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: made for US Gov. --PumpkinSky talk 12:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
No actual source information is given, the uploader did not tell where the image came from, could as well be a hobby creation Jcb (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason to doubt genuineness of emblem or stated source. Compare The Institute of Heraldry and Aviano Air Base web sites. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- User:Jcb's actions in trying to retroactively apply rigid sourcing standards to unproblematic and uncontroversial PD official U.S. military emblem images seem rather pointless to me (as discussed at length on the User Problems board). If Jcb could point to a specific concrete problem with this particular image, that would be quite a different matter... AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I did mention a 'specific concrete problem' in the deletion rational: we don't have source information with which we can verify that this is indeed an 'official U.S. military emblem'. Could as well be a hobby creation. We delete thousands of fake flags/emblems/coats every year. Your keep vote should address the deletion rational rather than addressing the nominator. Your current keep vote is quite worthless, because you fail to come with a real argument. Jcb (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: This should clear things up. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Complex logo Natuur12 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Restored: after advice from deleting administrator (see restoration log). This logo is pretty simple even for its home country. Feel free to nominate again with more in depth reasoning, although I would appreciate a courtesy ping if you do so. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Restoring this file ingores a decade of Dutch case law. Natuur12 (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, per Natuur12.--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- The test for novices is pretty simple btw. If it is unlikely that two persons create the same work it has an own original character. 1 Of course the actual analysis by a judge is more complex and nuanced of course. I already wrote a detailed analysis before:
Vijf vierkante blokken met een witte stip in het midden zullen geen auteursrecht genereren. Ook niet als je er tekst onderzet. Want je, vijf dobbelstenen naast elkaar leggen geeft hetzelfde effect. Door te spelen met de happen uit de zijkant van deze "dobbelstenen" (Zowel qua omvang als qua locatie) worden er creative keuzes gemaakt en krijgt dit logo een eigen oorspronkelijk karakter en heeft dit logo het persoonlijk stempel van de maker. Als je dan bedenkt dat de originaliteitsdrempel in Nederland laag ligt is de conclusie dat het bijzonder aannemelijk is dat een rechter zal oordelen dat dit werk auteursrechtelijk beschermd is.
- I also cited various case law at the talk page of the uploader. While it would certainly have been my own fault for writing my comments there instead of here if an uninvolved admin would have undeleted the file Magog could have reasonably known about those arguments.
- The users who wanting to keep this logo have failed to counter my arguments ignoring another key argument that arranging simple geometrical shapes easily generates a copyright and I backed this claim up by linking to a verdict of the Dutch Supreme Court. The only argument provided by the parties who want to keep this file are it only consist of geometrical shapes and letters (quad non), I believe it is to simple, Natuur12 is mean and other stuff exists. I am very disappointed by this course of action. Instead of following the Commons community processes we now seem to accept undelete request containing fallacy after fallacy. Natuur12 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Who pissed in your cheerios this morning? I undeleted on the advice of the deleting administrator because I thought it was too simple. You cited no case law at all here. Now you ignore my request an attack me personally while ironically getting upset about the way people apparently treated you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I fail to see why I should have given you a courtesy ping when you didn't give me one. Dutch case law often doesn't give examples of the logo's when they place the ruling online but the arranging of the shapes is creative and this ruling supports my claim that arranging simple shapes can generate a copyright:
- Who pissed in your cheerios this morning? I undeleted on the advice of the deleting administrator because I thought it was too simple. You cited no case law at all here. Now you ignore my request an attack me personally while ironically getting upset about the way people apparently treated you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Zie kritisch ten aanzien van dit begrip: Gielen, IER 2004, p. 255 en Hugenholtz in NJ 2013, 503. Ik zie zelf niet direct een probleem met het begrip als zodanig. Ik onderschrijf wel de kritische waarschuwing van Hugenholtz dat niet uit het oog verloren moet worden dat een werk vaak een combinatie is van functionele en niet-functionele elementen. De creativiteit kan ook zitten in een bepaalde rangschikking of combinatie van de - op zichzelf bezien - functionele elementen. Voor het aannemen van een inbreuk is dan (echter) vooral van belang of de creatieve elementen zijn ontleend. Als de opvallende overeenkomsten in de kern juist niet-beschermde (functionele) elementen betreffen, moet de rechter niet al te gemakkelijk oordelen dat werken dezelfde totaal-indruk maken zodat er sprake van een inbreuk is. Van belang in dit verband is vooral HR 29 november 2002, ECLI:NL:HR:2002:AE8456, NJ 2003, 17, AMI 2003, 1, p. 15 m.nt. Visser, IER 2003, 17, p. 93 m.nt. FWG, NTBR 2003, 4, p. 224 m.nt. Quanjel-Schreurs (Una voce Particulare), rov. 3.5. Dezelfde totaal-indruk moet ontstaan door de ‘auteursrechtelijk beschermde trekken’ om tot een inbreuk te kunnen komen. Zie ook de conclusie van A-G Verkade ECLI:NL:PHR:2012:BY1532 onder 5.5.2
- In my analysis above I clearly stated which creative choices have been made. You can't continue to counter my arguments merely by stating you believe the logo is to simple. The craziest things have been granted a copyright in the Netherlands. The craziest things have been granted a copyright in the Netherlands. The smell of a perfume, the profile of a tire, a combination of simple forms in clothing. A judge even ruled that the taste of cheese could have a copyright but this has been overturned. Or the words “Zo, nu eerst” but luckly this has also been overturned. (And no, the Rubic cube wasn't granted a copyright in they end.) Natuur12 (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I found you a Powerpoint which summarizes the development the the relevant caselaw nicely. This document also supports my arguments. Natuur12 (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that this would be a copyright violation in the Netherlands (my homeland too), it would be borderline. In the US this would not be copyvio, because the blocks can be seen as a typeface, forming the letters D-O-O-R-N. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it would not have a US copyright because it is a typeface. Let's get a third Dutch opinion --Trijnstel, what do you think? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Jcb... I'm not sure this is a copyright violation in the Netherlands, judged by COM:TOO#Netherlands. Trijnsteltalk 21:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that the section is a bit outdated and incomplete. Though I wonder why both Jcb and Trijnstel believe this logo fails the "two persons create the same work"-test. Would someone else really create the same logo without having seen their current logo? I rather doubt it. Same goes for the EOKPS/EIS-test. I cleary mentioned some creative choises which are made Fonts and typefaces can have a copyright in NL btw. 1, 2. Let's say the five boxes are a typeface. A French example is the font "Bienvenue" which is protected by copyright. 1. Than why would't the typeface used in the DOORN-logo be protected? A lot of far less creative fonts are protected. Natuur12 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Jcb... I'm not sure this is a copyright violation in the Netherlands, judged by COM:TOO#Netherlands. Trijnsteltalk 21:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it would not have a US copyright because it is a typeface. Let's get a third Dutch opinion --Trijnstel, what do you think? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Typefaces are a difficult area for generalizations, so a French example is not really relevant. I think we all know that in the USA typefaces are explicitly not copyrighted. On the other hand, in the UK, typography has a special 25 year copyright measured from publication. Other countries fall between and while we don't have specific guidelines for the Netherlands, we're two against one with our natives with great Commons experience. That may be the best we can do. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- DR's aren't votes Jim and so far nobody even attempted to counter my arguments. Unless we have evidence that the treshold of originality for typefaces is high com:PCP prevails. I have already wasted enough of my time re-reading case law only to hit a the wall of disagreement instead of being countered by valid arguments. Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Two examples of typefaces protected by copyrigh can be found here. At least that's what the manual of style of Leiden University - an university with one of the best law faculties - says. Not the best source ever but feel free to counter my source with a better one. Natuur12 (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- DR's aren't votes Jim and so far nobody even attempted to counter my arguments. Unless we have evidence that the treshold of originality for typefaces is high com:PCP prevails. I have already wasted enough of my time re-reading case law only to hit a the wall of disagreement instead of being countered by valid arguments. Natuur12 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
No, DRs aren't explicit votes, but when three experienced editors split two to one on an issue, I would expect it to be closed on the two side.
We may find this useful, from Wp:Public_domain#Fonts_and_typefaces:
- " This treatment of fonts is not very unusual with respect to international law, and most [non-USA] jurisidctions do not consider fonts subject to copyright either (with the notable exception of the UK, which however also only covers typefaces as such, as they are for example employed in fonts, and not their actual use[15]). However, typefaces as such may be protected by design patents in many countries (either automatically, or by registration, or by some combination thereof). A prominent example is the European Union, where the automatic protection (without registration) expires after three years and can be extended (by registration) up to 25 years.
- We are concerned only with copyright here, but it would be interesting to know whether this logo is more than three years old and if it's design patent has been registered. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I just cited two blogs written by two off the most well know IP-lawyers in NL stating that typefaces are protected by copyright law if they are original enough which means typefaces are protected for at least 70 year after creation in NL. If a typeface is creative enough you don't need a patent in order to protect it. And you seem to fortget INC deleting it in the first place and Steins vote. Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding TOO, this may help Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- My first thought was that the author was inspired by dice or dominoes (therefore a not very original idea "not an idea created by the artist"), the text itself is also not very creative it's just the name. I understood later the letters are not "dominoes" but more disc vinyls, though they are not circular. Note that these are just comments. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- To divert an ordinary object into a font can maybe be considered a concept enough original, as they are not "just letters". Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- A concept can't have a copyright ;). But this is a nice summary for the once who cannot read Dutch though it is a bit outdated already since the Rubic case came after the creation of this PWP. Perhaps Jim and Magog want to read the document so they can genuinly decide how Dutch copyright law works? Natuur12 (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I read the paper and these are my takeaways:
- A work must show the imprint of creativity of the author. It cannot be purely functional. So a chemical diagram is usually not copyrightable.
- I am still not sure if the paper's author is stating that the threshold is or should be "hardly more than zero" creativity.
- Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is unless we are talking about applied art. (Unless someone goes to court in Amsterdam) Natuur12 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I read the paper and these are my takeaways:
- A concept can't have a copyright ;). But this is a nice summary for the once who cannot read Dutch though it is a bit outdated already since the Rubic case came after the creation of this PWP. Perhaps Jim and Magog want to read the document so they can genuinly decide how Dutch copyright law works? Natuur12 (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The threshold seems to be pretty low in the Netherlands. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination/COM:PRP - better to leave this deleted than to guess and not be sure. --lNeverCry 07:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)