Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/09/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Files uploaded by Devendra singh verma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal vanity photos of non-notable individual. Outside project scope and better suited to Facebook.
DAJF (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Devendra singh verma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused vanity photos of non-notable individual. Outside project scope.
DAJF (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: reupload of deleted content. --Jcb (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
mispelled Partynia (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Page and category were the same Jos1950 (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Page and category were the same Jos1950 (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
No longer in use in any user page, FYI, user depicted is a sockpuppeteer here on Commons and a sockpuppet on enwiki. ★ Poké95 01:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- delete, personal picture, out of scope Kayser Ahmad (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the photographer has released rights to the photograph. http://artmuseum.princeton.edu/image-use-and-access is the terms for the source site, which attempts to go further and restrict the use of public domain works.
An examination of the catalog shows that the copyright symbol is used on works where there may be a copyright restriction and not on copies of obviously public domain artworks based on age. So "© Richard Misrach" has to be read as a photograph that should not be uploaded to Commons. Fæ (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted by the RFEF (Spanish Federation), not so simple to be a "textlogo". - Fma12 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The photo came from here, a website that allows anyone to post pictures of "celebrities", including copyrighted photos. There is no information about the author and the true license of this picture. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
esta mal el nombre Bombemelec98 (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
incorrect photo Сарапулов (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Maria Teixeira Simões
[edit]- File:JLouro5wiki.jpg
- File:JoaoLourowiki.jpg
- File:Blind image-200.jpg
- File:7 blind image 2x3.jpg
- File:ElvasMap.jpg
The first four have the following in the metadata: "JoaoMiranda Photography" and "© JOÃO MIRANDA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Any form of reproduction, is strictly prohibited without written permission of the author." The last one has the author in the metadata but not the same glaring copyright declaration; still, considering the uploader's pattern, I think we should consider that one copyrighted as well. At any rate, it is apparently not "own work". --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
License here only allows for Non-commerical usage (CC-by-nc-sa 3.0), which is forbidden on Commons per Commons:Licensing Animalparty (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC) =I understand. Thanks.
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
файл загружен по ошибке - фото другого объекта Новгородского Кремля Tisp18 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
файл загружен по ошибке - фото другого объекта Новгородского Кремля Tisp18 (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Defau Swegue (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Defau Swegue 3.jpg
- File:Defau Swegue 2.jpg
- File:Defau Swegue Preto Show e Bala Preta.jpg
- File:Luck Fresh 3.jpg
- File:Luck Fresh 2.jpg
- File:Defau Swegue.jpg
- File:Luck Fresh.jpg
Ies (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: VOA uploads. --INeverCry 23:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The metadata states that the photo is copyrighted by "Dirk Vogel" and the uploader states the author is "Klaus Roewer" and does not provide permission information. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andburslem (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andburslem (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertisement. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:840A Class XD Amplifier White Paper.pdf
- File:Azur 851A Wiki.jpg
- File:Azur 851W wiki.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio 851A integrated amplifier (top) and 851C CD (bottom).jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio Minx Go Wireless Speaker.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio Minx Air 200 Wireless Speaker.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio Aeromax 6 floor standing speakers.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio S700 Isomagic DAC.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio Classic One.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio A75.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio R40.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio pic 1.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio P50 and T55.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio P50 AND 50 (2).jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio P40.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio CD1.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio C50.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio A1 special edition.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio Azur 640H.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio cd1.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio V500.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio TL200.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio R50.jpg
- File:Cambridge audio R50 (2).jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio P110.jpg
- File:Cambridge audio p60 stereo integrated amp.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio P50 and P70.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio P50 AND 50.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio MINX.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio CD3.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio C70 and C100.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio azur 840a class xd integrated amplifier.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio A70 and A100.jpg
- File:Cambridge Audio A1 hybrid Amp.jpg
- File:CD1 Advert featruing Stan Curtis.jpg
- File:James Johnson-Flint.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- ticket:2016112110010603 is related to these files and contains permission (has to be validated). Basvb (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: All tagged with OTRS pending - if OTRS isn't sufficient, Basvb can delete them or re-nominate them for DR. --lNeverCry 02:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bhadrakaliyamma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Hindiastrologer.jpg
- File:Best Indian Tamil Astrologer In Singapore Hindi Astrologer In New Zealand.jpg
- File:Blackmagicspecialist.jpg
Ies (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Onlinemarket (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Email marketing company in delhi for best efforts.jpg
- File:SMS Marketing Company in India for marketing.jpg
- File:How to get Sms marketing delhi for your marketing.jpg
- File:How to get Sms marketing price.jpg
Ies (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Scan of a 1991 publication, likely copyrighted, with no indication otherwise. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abitcorpseo1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Website designing.jpg
- File:Website development company in Indore.jpg
- File:Website designing company in Indore.jpg
- File:Mobile app banner copy.jpg
Ies (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abitcorpseo1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Now the correct reason: Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Website designing.jpg
- File:Website development company in Indore.jpg
- File:Website designing company in Indore.jpg
- File:Mobile app banner copy.jpg
Ies (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Spam. --INeverCry 23:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio, widely published, one example: http://www.maldives.holidayinnresorts.com/villas/ MKFI (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. MKFI (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Taken from http://highhillentertainment.com/portfolio_page/angela-del-salto-lopez/ MKFI (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violations: 8 images taken with 4 different cameras.. File:LAPV.jpg is from http://blog.dupontregistry.com/aftermarket/the-terradyne-gurkha-a-street-legal-tactical-vehicle/ (sourced as Terradyne press photo).
- File:Florida 20140616 152849.jpg
- File:Photo RPV SAM.jpg
- File:RPV Civilian Edition.jpg
- File:RPV Snow.jpg
- File:Outside photo MPV.jpg
- File:LAPV.jpg
- File:20160615 173632 Richtone(HDR).jpg
- File:20160615 173357 Richtone(HDR).jpg
MKFI (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. --INeverCry 23:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work using an image of devices that is probably copyrighted. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Please delete the test pic, i used it to test the upload-campaign Agruwie talk 08:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
May infringe copyright. See File:Zuun personal.jpg Techyan（Talk） 09:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Take back deletion request. Problem solved. --Techyan（Talk） 14:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. --INeverCry 00:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Likely copyvio: Low quality, EXIF contains no camera info Wcam (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently a scan of a publication, no explanation as to what it is. Unclear licensing/copyright status. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Previously published at http://blog.goo.ne.jp/yu_miri/e/748bfc33515239c99b24ddc3d37031ee --ghouston (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
own work claim but taken from http://www.audioenmuziek.nl/boekbespreking/onder-stroom-–-geschiedenis-van-de-elektronische-muziek-in-nederland/ Agora (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Metaphorical analysis
[edit]The user uploaded two photos of musicians, claimed "own work", but then listed the authors of the photos as Summer Sullivan and Kristian Colasacco, respectively. The uploader can't be both people, and I will assume they are neither. Unclear authorship and copyright status. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
per com:Licensing, it seems not free enough to share on commons, especially for the restriction on commercial uses : Please see also Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle Tokorokoko (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @user:Tokorokoko it's very good to see you work hard for building of wikipedia despite there's noth'in pay for you:) can i prove it as i propose this link? [1] come to think of it the company maked in public(not only in cloth of comme des garson), it's not bad to post in wikimedia... maybe? rather, i think it's nothing commercial purpose. 호로조 (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:DbdayBreakerdb
[edit]Likely copyright violations; the first image has the watermark of a music company on it, so it is not "own work", and the second is apparently a screen capture of TV or video, so the copyright status is unclear. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted. The metadata says Author: "Arpanchahal" and Copyright holder: "Arpanchahalphotography". Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The metadata lists the author of the image as "Taha" and the Copyright holder as "amr and trk photography". Apparently copyrighted. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Probably not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- also file:Chak no. 291 eb.jpg
Compare with http://st.depositphotos.com/1314526/3070/v/950/depositphotos_30702265-Wood-sign-board-hanging-with.jpg from Depositphotos. I think, that the nominated files violate copyright. Taivo (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims based on the low/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent metadata, and the fact that the user's other uploads were files grabbed from the Internet with random made-up licensing claims.
- File:Robin Thicke dances with a child during a Get Well Soon Tour event.jpg
- File:Magic Giant performing at Wanderlust Squaw Valley.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 13:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://officialbekuhboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Bekuh-BOOM-4blog.png. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://www.iaconcagua.com/Multimedia/modelos/2373.w740.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlos Alberto F. (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P2DHmVEKLVc/TC4Cvy4IyDI/AAAAAAAACAI/TfjWsM1xLiU/s1600/Professor+josemar+1.jpg.
- File:Rodrigo Neves.jpg
- File:DAYSE OLIVEIRA.JPG
- File:Professor josemar 1.jpg
- File:Dr Dilson.jpg
- File:Dejorge.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Lauralynn21
[edit]Copyrighted. The metadata in each image states "Copyright holder: Jen Wood Photography (website link)". --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
A theatre poster. Likely copyrighted by the theatre unless there is evidence otherwise. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
A magazine cover. This is copyrighted unless there is evidence otherwise. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
A nonexistent region in Pakistan and India that is not supported by a source. This user is also blocked on the English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. The same file is used at this website. Filpro (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Data of a nonexistent region in Pakistan that is not supported by a source. Districts are listed under the wrong province. The same file is used at this website.Filpro (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shunshine Always (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shunshine Always (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyright violations given the low resolutions, missing metadata, and the fact that all of the user's other uploads have been blatant copyright violations with false authorship claims.
—LX (talk, contribs) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shunshine Always (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metadata, and the uploader's history. Possibly screenshots from a video or television broadcast (the height being typical for that, while the width may have been selected to crop out channel logos or watermarks).
—LX (talk, contribs) 11:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shunshine Always (talk · contribs)
[edit]...and instead of commenting on the existing deletion nomination, Shunshine Always continues to charge ahead with more low-resolution images without metadata.
- File:AllyBrooke-5H.jpg
- File:Jauregui-today.jpg
- File:Lauren-727tour.jpg – screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9kAIJaeYA
- File:Camila cabello727tour.jpg – screenshot from https://twitter.com/CAMILAP0TR4/status/764933396501897216/video/1
- File:Cabello Jinglebell2015.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 07:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
copyrighted vg character, see http://megaman.wikia.com/wiki/Axl#Gallery ze un fo un 19:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
copyrighted vg character, see http://megaman.wikia.com/wiki/Axl#Gallery ze un fo un 19:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Modified from this copyrighted photo. Notice how the shadows are in the same places in both pictures. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete Flickr washing. The image is property of Associated press, as these links show: [2] [3]. License not compatible with Commons. Hammersoft (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete - per nom.- MrX 21:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Modified from the copyrighted photo in this article — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
it is a test to see if this gif image is animated or not . It is not so please , delete this image. Thanks Moroplogo (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Author and source are given without evidence of permission from either, and then the metadata states "Copyright holder: © VG Bild Kunst Bonn für Stefan Krüskemper" and "Author: Stefan Krüskemper". Not own work and apparently copyrighted. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
In the metadata: "Author: FOTOstudio IMAGE", "Copyright holder: FOTOstudio IMAGE" Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It has no meaning. LumiNiceOne (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Irvin calicut (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Onam sadhya begining (4).jpg
- File:Onam sadhya begining (3).jpg
- File:Onam sadhya begining (2).jpg
- File:Onam sadhya (4).jpg
- File:Onam sadhya (3).jpg
- File:Onam sadhya (2).jpg
- File:Onam sadhya (1).jpg
Ies (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private child image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thomasmathewkumbukkad (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:BE WITH FRIENDS IS MORE.jpg
- File:Thomasmathewkumbukkad.jpg
- File:THOMAS MATHEW.jpg
- File:FRIENDS FUN ALL TIME Wherever you go, go with all your heart.jpg
Ies (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:56, 29 September 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: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The file dates back to after June 2013 and is not therefore in public domain. You can refer to this discussion for more details.
The following files also have the same problem:
- File:Zhan Shun-gui by VOA 20140204.jpg
- File:Hong Lei.png
- File:Lu Kang.jpg
- File:Amchok Gonpo Dhondup.jpg
- File:Alan Cantos.jpg
- File:Khenpo Gawang.jpg
- File:KarmapaVOAinterview.jpg
- File:Interview with Nyima Lhamo, niece of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche.jpg
- File:Hunger strike over national education.jpg
- File:Richard Tsoi at LegCo press conf.jpg
Mhhossein talk 02:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: VoA files have been undeleted in the meantime. --Jcb (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Ridwanrismanto (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage in id.wiki and uploading a photo about himself, which is used nowhere, except on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sanjuthakur1998 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:My Best Friend good.jpg
- File:Holiday injoi.jpg
- File:I am Biker.jpg
- File:Nice Pick.jpg
- File:Good work.jpg
- File:Sanju.jpg
- File:Sanjeev Thakur.jpg
- File:Injoy.jpg
Ies (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE jdx Re: 16:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rodrigo andres cuesta hernandez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ EQUATORIANO 5.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ 12.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ 23.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ VENEZOLANO 3.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ VENEZOLANO.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ VENEZOLANO 2.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ 4.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ 5.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ 3.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ 1.jpg
- File:RODRIGO ANDRES CUESTA HERNANDEZ 2.jpg
Ies (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Commons is no private photo album. --Achim (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
likely copyrighted, says so in metadata. MB298 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Typo, must be Category Jos1950 (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused and deprecated; delete or redirect to File:BSicon lhSTR+Raf.svg. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. I haven’t been following the elevated discussion (pun!) with full attention, but things seem to have went up the right way a while back (standartized geometry and naming, at last), so I trust the nomination. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused and deprecated; delete or redirect to File:BSicon lhSTR+Leg.svg Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. I haven’t been following the elevated discussion (pun!) with full attention, but things seem to have went up the right way a while back (standartized geometry and naming, at last), so I trust the nomination. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Incentive01 (talk · contribs)
[edit]lacks of source for the aerial photo
Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lazaro mawe (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal image : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Himat1
[edit]Personal artwork uploaded only for self-promotion of music recordings. No educational value. The files are not in use. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
COM:SELFIE jdx Re: 15:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Raymond Poulidor, Jacques Anquetil and Federico Bahamontes podium, Tour de France 1964.jpg
[edit]File:Anquetil Poulidor Bahamontes 1964.jpg BaldBoris 02:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
File:Київ, Меморіальний комплекс «Український державний музей історії Великої Вітчизняної війни», Лаврська вул. 27.jpg
[edit]No FOP in Ukraine. Built in 1981. Off-shell (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Too low quality. MKFI (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
On the source site i don't see any permissions to use this file on license CC-BY-SA Andriy.v (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Not educationally useful. Svensson1 (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal artwork uploaded only for self-promotion; not in use; no educational value. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Wooz1e
[edit]Personal artwork. The files are not in use. No potential value to anyone but the uploader. Also derivative work using copyrighted material. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Watermark "Judith del Roble". I think, that OTRS-permission from author is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 08:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The metadata states "Copyright holder: Joanna i Slawek Dabrowscy". Apparently copyrighted. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Spoke too fast; all the uploader's other photos say the same thing:
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
This 1982 photo is called selfie, but it does not look like that. OTRS-permission from photographer is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
files make unsourced and challenged claims to benefits of a product; conflicting interest; discussion started in en:Talk:Fibre to the office where they were used Zac67 (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Says "own work" but possible copyright infringement, see http://www.nexans.be/eservice/Belgium-en/fileLibrary/Download_540271950/UK/files/kd-1031e03_FttO_Brochure_LR_1.pdf --Zac67 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Unused, not realistically useful for educational purposes, and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
files make unsourced and challenged claims to benefits of a product; conflicting interest; discussion started in en:Talk:Fibre to the office where they were used Zac67 (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Says "own work" but possible copyright infringement, see http://www.nexans.be/eservice/Belgium-en/fileLibrary/Download_540271950/UK/files/kd-1031e03_FttO_Brochure_LR_1.pdf --Zac67 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
files make unsourced and challenged claims to benefits of a product; conflicting interest; discussion started in en:Talk:Fibre to the office where they were used Zac67 (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Says "own work" but possible copyright infringement, see http://www.nexans.be/eservice/Belgium-en/fileLibrary/Download_540271950/UK/files/kd-1031e03_FttO_Brochure_LR_1.pdf --Zac67 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
files make unsourced and challenged claims to benefits of a product; conflicting interest; discussion started in en:Talk:Fibre to the office where they were used Zac67 (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Says "own work" but possible copyright infringement, see http://www.nexans.be/eservice/Belgium-en/fileLibrary/Download_540271950/UK/files/kd-1031e03_FttO_Brochure_LR_1.pdf --Zac67 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
files make unsourced and challenged claims to benefits of a product; conflicting interest; discussion started in en:Talk:Fibre to the office where they were used Zac67 (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Says "own work" but possible copyright infringement, see http://www.nexans.be/eservice/Belgium-en/fileLibrary/Download_540271950/UK/files/kd-1031e03_FttO_Brochure_LR_1.pdf --Zac67 (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Shaskvir
[edit]- File:Walkintomylife cover.jpg
- File:Parinda cover -shaskvir.jpg
- File:Shaskvir with taeyang.jpg
- File:Shaskvir live at vibration2014.jpg
Personal artwork uploaded only for self-promotion of music. They are used in a draft on Wikipedia that was rejected also because it was a self-promotional autobiography by the same user. In addition, the images are of the user but he does not credit the photographer or allow them to provide a license for their work, so the copyright is in question. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Promotional image for non-notable person. Outside project scope. Blythwood (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete Per nomination. --GeorgHH • talk 13:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Recent artwork. No FoP in France. No permission. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I want to reuplode it with some changes Ahnaf8019 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Probably copyright? Also dubious if in Commons scope? MPF (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Bad Quality, blurry Hiddenhauser (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Too low quality & unidentified. Can't be used anywhere. --Chaoborus (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
File:Армия ДРА -Демократической Республики Азербайджан, созданная при участии СССР. Иран .Тебриз 1946.jpg
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution and previous publications found elsewhere. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Bad Quality, blurry Hiddenhauser (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Image retouched in software for better visibility.--Nizil Shah (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: better quality now. --INeverCry 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
User claims ownership of image, but the image with better resolution can be found on a copyrighted page http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/fond/vom/show/show_026/01.htm . The same applies to other images of this user Oleg (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
We have really much better photos about feral pigeons. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal image with no educational content Florn (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
photomontage with no educational content Florn (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: no educational content Florn (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Description makes clear, that this is copyrighted toy. Taivo (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal picture for promotional Wikipedia article, outside project scope. Blythwood (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal image as part of promotional Wikipedia article. Blythwood (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Per Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft products guideline: Microsoft's guidelines do not allow derivative works, so screenshots of Microsoft products would go against Commons policy.
The subject of the image seems to be Internet Explorer 10, a non-free browser by Microsoft. Though large parts of the elements are {{PD-shape}}, do we apply Commons:De minimis or Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle here? The original uploader has a history of copyright violations of derivative works. 80.221.159.67 16:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Per Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft products guideline: Microsoft's guidelines do not allow derivative works, so screenshots of Microsoft products would go against Commons policy.
The subject of the image seems to be Internet Explorer 10, a non-free browser by Microsoft. Though large parts of the elements are {{PD-shape}}, do we apply Commons:De minimis or Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle here? The original uploader has a history of copyright violations of derivative works. 80.221.159.67 16:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE jdx Re: 16:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE jdx Re: 16:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
esta mal la imagen y es de mi propiedad y no puedo borrarlo Areyes108 (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
This file will be superseded by a newer map of all the high courts of India. (I am the original uploader) Filpro (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
very small, unused Hiddenhauser (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and unidentified. --Chaoborus (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
very small, unused Hiddenhauser (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Poor quality. Lymantria (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Poor quality. Lymantria (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
bassa qualità scarso interesse AngeloMiele (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Unused image of random gravel, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep ins scope, with coordinates, usable. --Ralf Roleček 20:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Ralf Roleček (even if I'm skeptic). Ruthven (msg) 00:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
bassa qualità scarso interesse AngeloMiele (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
bassa qualità scarso interesse AngeloMiele (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
bassa qualità scarso interesse AngeloMiele (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
your opinions are asked: 2007 photo missing EXIF data to verify claimed 'own work', imho rather poor qualitaty of on object with (many) other photos at Wikimedia Commons, hence imho rather imho potentially also affected (2007/quality/data): File:An ancient temple in karnataka.jpg and File:A pillar engraved with anscient scupture in karnataka.jpg (additional, no location) - your decision. Roland zh (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
your opinions are asked: 2007 photo missing EXIF data to verify claimed 'own work', imho rather poor qualitaty of on object with (many) other photos at Wikimedia Commons, hence imho rather imho potentially also affected (2007/quality/data): File:Arabian sea near Bekal fort in Kerala.jpg, File:Arabian sea near bekal fort in kerala.jpg, File:Canal near kidangara, alapuzha.jpg, File:Kuttanad pictures, near Kidangara.jpg, and File:Scuptures near palakkad fort.jpg - your decision. Roland zh (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
as per File:Parambikulam near aliyar.jpg et al: 2007, bad quality, missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Image of uploaders family. Only private content. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 19:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juan Antonio Araujo Sandoval (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image collection, no educational content.
GeorgHH • talk 19:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Disputed (see file page), replaced by File:Exisulind structure.svg. Leyo 20:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}; replaced by File:Fluroxene.svg and File:Fluroxeen structuur.png. Leyo 20:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Floc'h is born in 1953. Copyright violation. 90.61.173.215 21:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
incorrect photo Сарапулов (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sochi 2014 winter olympics official logo.gif Tbhotch™ 22:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. Only typeface out of copyright, logo has NO rings. Too simple --EEIM (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: simple text logo. --INeverCry 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sochi 2014 winter olympics official logo.gif Tbhotch™ 22:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: simple text logo. --INeverCry 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted tickets that include more than simple text and color Tbhotch™ 22:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The metadata states "Copyright holder alan weissman photography", "Author Alan Weissman", "Copyright status: Copyrighted". Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal artwork, not in use, with no educational value; out of Project scope. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Mys_721tx (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
incorrect photo Сарапулов (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
This file will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2034 Coldcreation (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, if published before 1923 the image can be uploaded to en:wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
This file will not be in the public domain in its home country until January 1, 2034 Coldcreation (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Madelacruz
[edit]The uploader states these are photos of himself, but they cannot be his own work and he does not credit the photographer or allow them to license their work. License in question. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The uploader states this is a photo of himself, but it cannot be own work and he does not credit the photographer or allow them to license their work; license status in question. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 01:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
(redirect) incorrect naming; unused in articles and templates Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Macha_van_Beusekom Macha van Beusekom (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: you cannot delete your user talk page. --Jcb (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
C-SPAN logo is blurred throughout the tape but appears in the last seconds. The claim that this broadcast was produced by the US administration is unlikely. Gyrostat (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- :: There is definitely no copyright on this video, this is produced by the non-partisan organization for Presidential debates, The video is from a single camera feed (a pool feed) that is picked up by all of the networks uniformly. This pool feed is provided by the Executive Office to C-SPAN which is the not-for-profit that opens their airwaves to all viewpoints, and is mandated to be carried by the FCC. Now while I would prefer to have uploaded a pure pool feed grab, those just do not exist, so the next best solution is the C-SPAN feed, would anyone suggest that covering the C-SPAN logo would fix this problem? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The Commission on Presidential Debates is as you say, an independant non-profit organization. There is no reason to beleive that it cannot hold copyrights and no evidence that it has freely licensed this work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The author is definitely not Samuel Wilson, and the claim that this video has been produced by the US administration is unlikely. C-SPAN appears to be the producer (copyright holder ?). Gyrostat (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is definitely no copyright on this video, this is produced by the non-partisan organization for Presidential debates, The video is from a single camera feed (a pool feed) that is picked up by all of the networks uniformly. This pool feed is provided by the Executive Office to C-SPAN which is the not-for-profit that opens their airwaves to all viewpoints, and is mandated to be carried by the FCC. Now while I would prefer to have uploaded a pure pool feed grab, those just do not exist, so the next best solution is the C-SPAN feed, would anyone suggest that covering the C-SPAN logo would fix this problem? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The Commission on Presidential Debates is as you say, an independant non-profit organization. There is no reason to beleive that it cannot hold copyrights and no evidence that it has freely licensed this work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Not produced by the US administration but C-SPAN Gyrostat (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)::This is produced by the United States Executive Office for the Journalists that follow the Presidents (The White House Press Corps), The video is from a single camera feed (a pool feed) that is picked up by all of the networks uniformly. This pool feed is provided by the Executive Office to C-SPAN which is the not-for-profit that opens their airwaves to all viewpoints, and is mandated to be carried by the FCC. Now while I would prefer to have uploaded a pure pool feed grab, those just do not exist, so the next best solution is the C-SPAN feed, would anyone suggest that covering the C-SPAN logo would fix this problem? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: C-Span claims to have produced this work and there is no reason to believe that it cannot hold a copyright or that it has freely licensed this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Not produced by the US administration but C-SPAN Gyrostat (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is produced by the United States Executive Office for the Journalists that follow the Presidents (The White House Press Corps), The video is from a single camera feed (a pool feed) that is picked up by all of the networks uniformly. This pool feed is provided by the Executive Office to C-SPAN which is the not-for-profit that opens their airwaves to all viewpoints, and is mandated to be carried by the FCC. Now while I would prefer to have uploaded a pure pool feed grab, those just do not exist, so the next best solution is the C-SPAN feed, would anyone suggest that covering the C-SPAN logo would fix this problem? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: C-Span claims to have produced this work and there is no reason to believe that it cannot hold a copyright or that it has freely licensed this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Not produced by the US administration but C-SPAN Gyrostat (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is produced by the United States Executive Office for the Journalists that follow the Presidents (The White House Press Corps), The video is from a single camera feed (a pool feed) that is picked up by all of the networks uniformly. This pool feed is provided by the Executive Office to C-SPAN which is the not-for-profit that opens their airwaves to all viewpoints, and is mandated to be carried by the FCC. Now while I would prefer to have uploaded a pure pool feed grab, those just do not exist, so the next best solution is the C-SPAN feed, would anyone suggest that covering the C-SPAN logo would fix this problem? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: C-Span claims to have produced this work and there is no reason to believe that it cannot hold a copyright or that it has freely licensed this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Not produced by the US administration but C-SPAN Gyrostat (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is produced by the United States Executive Office for the Journalists that follow the Presidents (The White House Press Corps), The video is from a single camera feed (a pool feed) that is picked up by all of the networks uniformly. This pool feed is provided by the Executive Office to C-SPAN which is the not-for-profit that opens their airwaves to all viewpoints, and is mandated to be carried by the FCC. Now while I would prefer to have uploaded a pure pool feed grab, those just do not exist, so the next best solution is the C-SPAN feed, would anyone suggest that covering the C-SPAN logo would fix this problem? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: C-Span claims to have produced this work and there is no reason to believe that it cannot hold a copyright or that it has freely licensed this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Not produced by the US administration but C-SPAN Gyrostat (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong, not produced by C-SPAN but was broadcast by C-SPAN, a not-for-profit pseudo-governmental non-partisan organization. This was produced by the United Nations, and is therefore in the public domain. If the C-SPAN logo is blurred it would not be objectionable in the slightest. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- If produced by the UN, why credit the USgov ? For the record, I haven't seen anywhere that documents produced by the UN are in the public domain. Gyrostat (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong, not produced by C-SPAN but was broadcast by C-SPAN, a not-for-profit pseudo-governmental non-partisan organization. This was produced by the United Nations, and is therefore in the public domain. If the C-SPAN logo is blurred it would not be objectionable in the slightest. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: C-Span claims to have produced this work and there is no reason to believe that it cannot hold a copyright or that it has freely licensed this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Not produced by the US administration but C-SPAN Gyrostat (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is produced by the United States Executive Office for the Journalists that follow the Presidents (The White House Press Corps), The video is from a single camera feed (a pool feed) that is picked up by all of the networks uniformly. This pool feed is provided by the Executive Office to C-SPAN which is the not-for-profit that opens their airwaves to all viewpoints, and is mandated to be carried by the FCC. Now while I would prefer to have uploaded a pure pool feed grab, those just do not exist, so the next best solution is the C-SPAN feed, would anyone suggest that covering the C-SPAN logo would fix this problem?Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per JasonAggie. MB298 (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is produced by the United States Executive Office for the Journalists that follow the Presidents (The White House Press Corps), The video is from a single camera feed (a pool feed) that is picked up by all of the networks uniformly. This pool feed is provided by the Executive Office to C-SPAN which is the not-for-profit that opens their airwaves to all viewpoints, and is mandated to be carried by the FCC. Now while I would prefer to have uploaded a pure pool feed grab, those just do not exist, so the next best solution is the C-SPAN feed, would anyone suggest that covering the C-SPAN logo would fix this problem?Jasonanaggie (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: C-Span claims to have produced this work and there is no reason to believe that it cannot hold a copyright or that it has freely licensed this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The Lotus Cars logo, from a British company, is copyrighted Tbhotch™ 21:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a {{PD-textlogo}} as has been established here - Jcb (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- If this British logo is copyrighted, do you have evidence that back you up when saying File:Lotus F1 Team logo.jpg is not copyrighted? As mentioned there as well, COM:TOO is not inherited to British logos. Tbhotch™ 22:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The UK 25 year copyright on typography covers this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Tag PD-textlogo is not valid imho St1995 19:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - only letters and a few lines, so {{PD-textlogo}} - Jcb (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment I added note "possible copyrighted segment". I think that this part of the image - copyrighted and contains original authorship. Regards /St1995 11:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- The only things that are not text in that area are a circle and a quarter of a circle with rounded corners. Jcb (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: per Jcb. INeverCry 18:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The Lotus Cars logo, from a British company, is copyrighted. And I'll explain further than this because of this. {{PD-textlogo}} applies to most PD-textlogos from countries with a low threshold of originality, including the US and Germany. The UK, on the other hand, has a bigger threshold of originality, as marked at Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom. "Simple text" is not justified for keeping the logo. Tbhotch™ 21:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - per previous DR - Jcb (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unjustified, as mentioned in the request, this logo is British and original enough to be copyrighted in the country of origin, as requested at Commons:Licensing. You need a better argument than "is text". Tbhotch™ 22:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The UK 25 year copyright on typography covers this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:BSicon lhSTR.svg; delete and redirect. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Go ahead. :) ~ Newfitz Yo! 04:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Jcb -- I restored this, as I was in the process of changing it to a redirect when you deleted. It's in use in several places, so the redirect is essential. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. Jcb (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jcb and Jameslwoodward: The file (Media:BSicon lhHST.svg) is still there; was this intended? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)- It's a redirect -- see the tiny print in the upper left. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: I know, but it's still using the old file and not
(lhSTR); the redirect text doesn't actually do anything. Could you delete it and recreate the page purely as a redirect? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Done Aha, sorry, you're right -- it's a known bug, see Bugzilla: 14928, which I didn't know about. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: I know, but it's still using the old file and not
- It's a redirect -- see the tiny print in the upper left. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jcb and Jameslwoodward: The file (Media:BSicon lhHST.svg) is still there; was this intended? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
![10 File:Marcos Mondaino "El Diablo".jpg](#File:Marcos_Mondaino_"El_Diablo".jpg){kind=link}
![76 File:"Ridwan Rismanto from Tasikmalaya, West Java, Indonesia - Sep 2016.jpg".jpg](#File:"Ridwan_Rismanto_from_Tasikmalaya,_West_Java,_Indonesia_-_Sep_2016.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![06:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/24#c-Bombemelec98-2016-09-24T06:11:00.000Z-File:Marcos_Mondaino_"El_Diablo".jpg){kind=link}
![23:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/24#c-INeverCry-2016-09-24T23:52:00.000Z-File:Marcos_Mondaino_"El_Diablo".jpg){kind=link}
_and_851C_CD_(bottom).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&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}
![08:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/24#c-Taivo-2016-09-24T08:07:00.000Z-File:"Ridwan_Rismanto_from_Tasikmalaya,_West_Java,_Indonesia_-_Sep_2016.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
![00:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/09/24#c-Jcb-2016-09-30T00:57:00.000Z-File:"Ridwan_Rismanto_from_Tasikmalaya,_West_Java,_Indonesia_-_Sep_2016.jpg".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
The document is from a 1912 reliability trial race, and consequently the assertion that the image will be deleted within 7 days of the no source template being added is unhelpful for Commons and not required for any copyright reason. Refer to Betrouwbaarheidsrit for details of the event and a brief description of this document. Raising to a DR in order to avoid deletion or being faced with reverts. Fæ (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep in line with the facts in the nomination. --Fæ (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Hmm… public domain, in use… Why is this an issue again? Oh, the field "
Source" of the template "Information" lacked content? Well, not any more: It is now filled with the same “source” indication as thousand of other PD-old documents.
- On the other hand, it is a very bad quality scan. Fortunately, User:Jcb expressed keen interest on this file and, it being originated from this user’s own country, we can expected townhall archives and local automobile museus to be scrutinized until a better scan is made available to Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - who is the author? When did he/she die? Why does this NL-UK work have a US license? These are key questions that need to be answered. I am not randomly pressing buttons because of an empty field and 'Scan from the original work' is not a valid source of course. Jcb (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- It appears this was a case of pressing buttons rather than thinking first. The document is 1912 with no known author, so please avoid asking questions that are irrelevant for this image to comply with policy. Rather than reverting other volunteers and throwing up liminal justifications, do something productive and improve guidelines or policy. If you are convinced that your use of the "no source" template is in the interests of this project and is not disruptive, please make your case with the community at Commons:Village_pump#Big_purge_of_old_images.3F where your mass usage of this template to put public domain images under threat has been questioned at length. Thanks in advance. --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Or is is a case of pressing buttons instead of thinking, at all, and then childishly stand for one’s own actions instead of reevaluate them upon questioning? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The «key questions that need to be answered», then:
- «Who is the author?»
- I don’t know.
- «When did he/she die?»
- I don’t know. (That’s kinda a conditional follow-up of the 1st question, is it not?)
- «Why does this NL-UK work have a US license?»
- Slightly shocking, although not unsatisfactory in a certain way, that a Wikimedia Commons admin, one that feels free to slap no-source notices on random files by the thousand, doesn’t know the answer to this one — heck, even the question is wrong (this is not an US license). I refer to the relevant template page, where the exact scope of {{PD-anon-1923}} can be ascertained, as well as its relevance for the file in question, along with the correctness of its application here (2016−1912≫70).
- Should the mere mention of the United States be cause for pearl-clutching, however, a more palatable alternative is {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Either way, it is public domain, and insisting on deletion of this media item is mere vandalism.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- By not being able to answer the first question and subsequently the second question, you have failed to show that this file would be in de PD. And please refrain from personal attacks. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Jcb, the facts have been explained above, take some time out to review them properly. I agree with Tuvalkin's assessment of your actions. Unless you can demonstrate that the author can be named, your ongoing arguing against the facts is unhelpful. Nobody needs to do any additional work for this document to be kept. If you keep on persisting with these disruptive mass nominations and misusing your sysop tools to defend your actions (as I have seen you do twice in the last fortnight), then I don't see how you can be thought to be competent to retain sysop tools. --Fæ (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- By not being able to answer the first question and subsequently the second question, you have failed to show that this file would be in de PD. And please refrain from personal attacks. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep disruptive nomination. warn the editor to stop wasting everyone's time on very low risk items. make the nominator fix metadata one for one for each deletion nomination going forward. the editor will be known as "son of betacommand" Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, but I don't understand the arguments for keeping this. As Jcb has correctly said, we don't know who the author is. Since 1912 is twenty-five years too late to simply assume that the author has been dead for 70 years, we must rely on the rule for anonymous published documents, which is also 70 years. However, neither "anonymous" nor "publication" have been proven. We can dispose of "anonymous" because the rule also covers "corporate works with no listed natural author", which seems to be the case here. However, I see no evidence that the document was published before its appearance here.
- I think we need to remember that the "no source" template tells us that we have no proof of publication. If the image is going to be kept on Commons with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or a similar template from a country that begins the 70 years with publication, not creation, then we do need a source in order to show the date of publication which validates the template.
- I am also disappointed in the mud-slinging above. All three of you, Fæ, Tuválkin, and Slowking4, should be embarrassed, because, (a) mud-slinging is non-productive and (b) as far as I can see on the evidence in front of us, this is, at the very least, a subject for legitimate discussion. While it may turn out that there is a reason not mentioned above that we can keep this image, as I see it now, without proof that it was published before 1946, it must be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I do not understand your reasoning for a deletion. The author is unknown, consequently this is public domain in accordance with COM:L and COM:CRT. The 'not published' concern is most peculiar, these were rules for the race published at the time of the race. Nobody has claimed any publication rights, and it's only when there is a claim of publication rights that we should be worrying about them, not making up extreme hypothetical cases for publications over 100 years old. The level of research you are making up as new criteria for public domain works is unreasonable; there only has to be reasonable effort to determine copyright claims for Commons to host material uploaded by our unpaid volunteers, not only is there no legal need for us to have criteria that go beyond the practices of copyright law enforcement, but to do so actively damages the Commons project and should be subject to criticism. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- sorry not embarrassed. randomly raking low risk items over the coals is non-productive. it is not mud-slinging ; it is an accurate description of just what the reputation of this place is. where is the systemic assessment of items? where is the source and metadata improvement? you might well argue that precision is quality; but the professionals see it as amateur hour. happily the deletionist attention span is finite, and does not do permanent damage, but the optics are horrible. the case of betacommand is illustrative: he had his point in deleting fair use images, but did it is such a high handed, abrupt, automated manner, that he alienated the community. and we see many who adopt his methods, which are not collaborative. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 11:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing to be embarassed about, Jim. Some strong language was used but still mild when considering that you and Jcb are seriously argueing that this leaflet, obviously printed by the hundreds and handed over to the participants in this 1912 enduro trial, is somehow unpublished or not published in the date indicated. That would be realistic for a doodle drawing or a handwritten poem that might have created long ago but kept in a drawer for decades and therefore its creation and publication are very different things. But items like this one, obviously created for immediate distribution cause no such concerns. I’m truelly apalled and disappointed over your insistence — I may be cowed off (or simply given up) from expressing it in colorful wording, but the source for it sadly remains. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. First, the PCP does not allow us to keep "low risk" items. We regularly delete items that are copyright orphans where the risk approaches zero because that's what our most basic principle calls for. If you want to change that, fine, but don't try to do it in the middle of a single DR and certainly don't sling mud on one of our colleagues who is applying it.
- You say "extreme hypothetical cases for publications over 100 years old" -- the whole point here is that no one has proved that this is a publication -- until it is proven that it was published, it is only a copyrighted document.
- While the basic document was printed and therefore almost certainly "published" within the technical meaning of that term, this copy has a wide variety of handwritten notes of one sort or another -- they are illegible, so to apply Tuvalkin's reasoning, someone must show that they do not qualify for copyright. That hasn't been done (and may be impossible), so there has to be a significant doubt about the status of this copy of the basic document. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it was published. It existed as a form published for the race and the race was a public event and widely reported, that is more than a "technical" rationale. We can apply commonsense to the understanding of what "publication" means, especially for 100 year+ old documents. If there was any concern that someone is claiming that it was never published and they are claiming that by scanning a document they have new publications rights under EU law for 25 years, well that only applies if someone is actually claiming publication rights. They are not, so this is not a concern unless you can name a claimant.
- The arguments being presented here go way beyond what would ever be meaningful in court for the image Commons is actually hosting. DRs like this set a precedent, if we accept this type of "everything must be fully proved beyond all possible doubt" rather than accepting that "no significant doubt exists" per the current COM:PRP, then we should delete almost all of the material uploaded to Commons under a 'no copyright known' basis plus a massive proportion of existing archaic material claimed as Public Domain by age but without specific prior verifiable publication histories (which would be completely impossible to discover as they are lost in the mists of time); yet that does not happen...
- Again, copyright law requires us to make reasonable efforts to determine copyright status, it does not require the impossible to be done or for us to go beyond what is current accepted copyright practice. --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- While the basic document was printed and therefore almost certainly "published" within the technical meaning of that term, this copy has a wide variety of handwritten notes of one sort or another -- they are illegible, so to apply Tuvalkin's reasoning, someone must show that they do not qualify for copyright. That hasn't been done (and may be impossible), so there has to be a significant doubt about the status of this copy of the basic document. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: This is what we would call an anonymous or semi-anonymous work under Dutch law. The same applies to UK law since they have a even more mellow definition of anonymous works. We know for a fact that the work originates from 1912 which makes it PD in the US. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh and as Fae points out, of course this work has been published. Natuur12 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)