Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/10/17
 |
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 Reflection1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]http://www.newdawnpaper.nl/portfolio/lana-mesic-anatomy-of-forgiveness
Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 00:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE - low quality with several anon people in frame lNeverCry 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 00:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
The photograph is public domain. It was probably taken between 1942-1944 and falls under copyright rules for Japan. Just because a site suffers from link rot is not a reason to risk bureaucratically deleting likely public domain media. 
Keep Unless a watertight rationale for deletion is presented. Fæ (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Info Date corrected to 1939 by another contributor. --Fæ (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Location may have been China. Similar copyright applies with regard to the 50 year rule, so there is no difference in outcome. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Offnfopt(talk) 10:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, per Fæ and Piotrus. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per arguments provided above re copyright status, and clearly, from the very beginning, there was a source anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept - sufficient information has been provided in the meantime, license corrected by me - Jcb (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Source states "Copyright remains with original author", and there is no indication of a free license. Storkk (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sunnyboy004 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. Taivo (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
delete Sunnyboy004 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. Taivo (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
In error, I loaded an Image not mine, of a Church where photos are prohibited. Carlo Dani (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: In error, I loaded an Image not mine, of a Church where photos are prohibited.
License is wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept, I found correct license. As the file is used in uk.wikisource, here is also no scope problem. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
An entire album of music by an artist with no proven notability. Please see our project scope.
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 07.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 11.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 10.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 08.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 09.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 06.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 04.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 05.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 03.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 01.wav
- File:01 - Coat Of Many Colours 02.wav
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Khanmuneer33 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Muneer0.jpg
- File:Muneer3.jpg
- File:Muneer2.jpg
- File:Muneer1.jpg
- File:Muneerkhan4.jpg
- File:Muneerkhan2.jpg
- File:Muneerkhan1.jpg
- File:Muneerkhan3.jpg
- File:Muneer.khan.jpg
- File:Muneer khan.jpg
- File:Shimla mall road church.jpg
lNeverCry 00:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Khanmuneer33 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These seem all to be unused personal images that are outside of project scope, especially as I don't see any articles on this individual on any projects (the information commissioner of Kashmir is a different person. That and File:Muneerkhan10.jpg looks like a derivative work (screenshot) of a copyrighted newspaper.
(Note to self that en:File talk:Muneerkhan.jpg will also need to be deleted if these files are, but that's for enwiki to decide)
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by The Congressman22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by The Congressman22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused maps and trivial flag of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:NYSen1968Map.png
- File:Senate1976.png
- File:Senate1974.png
- File:Senate1972.png
- File:Senate1970.png
- File:1980Pres.png
- File:1976Pres.png
- File:1972Pres.png
- File:Senate1968.png
- File:1968Pres.png
- File:Senate19661.png
- File:CA1966Gov.png
- File:Senate1966.png
- File:NewYork1965.png
- File:1962Senate2.png
- File:Senate1964.png
- File:1962SenateR.png
- File:CommunistCuba.png
- File:CA1962Gov.png
- File:Senate1962.png
- File:1962SenateE.png
- File:1962Senate.png
- File:1964Pres.png
- File:G5159.png
- File:1958Senate.png
- File:1960Senate.png
- File:1960Senate.svg
- File:1960PresMapAlt.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by The Congressman22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious licensing. No evidence of PD or free license.
- File:Towerjohnbio.jpg
- File:GeorgeWallaceOfficial.jpg
- File:MadMitch.jpg
- File:Peter Shore1.png
- File:Tony-benn1.jpg
- File:DickCheneyCoS.jpg
- File:RichardCrossman.jpg
- File:JulianAmery.jpg
Sealle (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
We received a request for the removal of this image at OTRS ticket:2016100810010845 While permission statements are intended to be irrevocable and this image is used in an article, I note that the metadata states that the author of the photo is the national portrait Gallery of London and it identifies a copyright holder of the National Portrait Gallery of London. We do not have a permission statement on record as far as I know from the National Portrait Gallery, thus I suggest it should be removed. Sphilbrick (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The copyright claim from the gallery is bogus of course. The author, Anthony Rosenbaum, died in 1888. Copyright has expired. --Jcb (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FlaviaCompiano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Blue Records Studio.jpg
- File:Daury Blue (2).jpg
- File:Daury Blue (8).jpg
- File:Daury Blue (4).jpg
- File:Daury Blue (10).jpg
- File:Daury Blue (7).jpg
- File:Daury Blue (9).jpg
- File:Daury Blue (5).jpg
- File:Daury Blue (6).jpg
- File:Daury Blue (3).jpg
- File:Daury Blue.jpg
lNeverCry 02:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque 34
[edit]No FOP in Morocco
- File:Arcs de la Mosquée Hassan-II.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque - Grande Mosquée Hassan II.jpg
- File:Mosque Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco, 摩洺哥.jpg
- File:MOSQUEE HASSAN II.jpg
- File:Mosquée Hassan II -2.jpg
- File:Mustapha ennaimi - 23768064204.jpg
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Furthermore File:MOSQUEE HASSAN II.jpg is previously published and would need a separate VRT permission from the photographer even if we obtained a general permission for the mosque. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque 35
[edit]No FOP in Morocco
- File:Casablanca, Morocco (51256636929).jpg
- File:الدار البيضاء مسجد الحسن الثاني.jpg
- File:جامع الحسن الثاني.jpg
--Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by INeverCry: No license since 16 October 2016
Obviously a copyright violation John from Idegon (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 07:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
For speedy deletion. Non-free image, published in newspaper by the provided link with clear notice forbidding any use without written permission by the copyright holder. Tatewaki (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. --JuTa 08:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Same issues as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chef Singh .jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lokendra Pal Singh.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Promoton.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Singh .jpg. Unused personal photos of subject with no apparent notability, apparently uploaded for purposes of self promotion. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. Also: questionable authorship claims based on the low resolutions, missing/inconsistent metadata (indicating photos were grabbed from Facebook, Google and Picasa), the fact that the uploader appears to be the subject rather than the photographer, and the fact that several of the photos are obvious derivatives of pre-existing photographs.
- File:Teem 11.jpg
- File:Teem 08.jpg
- File:Teem 10.jpg
- File:Teem 09.jpg
- File:Teem 05.jpg
- File:Teem 06.jpg
- File:Teem 07.jpg
- File:Teem 04.jpg
- File:Teem 02.jpg
- File:Teem 01.jpg
- File:Teem 03.jpg
- File:H.H. Sri Sri Ravi Sankar Guruji in Bangkok.jpg
- File:Pm VVIP.jpg
- File:Proudly Moment @ Shangri-la hotel Bangkok Thailand - 4.jpg
- File:Indian embassy.jpg
- File:Proudly Moment @ Shangri-la hotel Bangkok Thailand - 3.jpg
- File:Office chef singh.jpg
- File:@ THE HOTEL CHEF SINGH.jpg
- File:Chef singh.jpg
- File:Chef singh 4.jpg
- File:Bangkok - 3.jpg
- File:INDIAN VVIP.jpg
- File:OUR PM @ HOTEL BANGKOK.jpg
- File:Thailang VVIP.jpg
- File:VVIP @ THE.jpg
- File:AWARD @ HOTEL BANGKOK.jpg
- File:Award IN Bangkok.jpg
- File:VIP @ Bangkok.jpg
- File:@ the Bangkok.jpg
- File:VVIP @ Bangkok.jpg
- File:SINGH.jpg
- File:Chef singh Bangkok 2.jpg
- File:Chef singh Bangkok1.jpg
- File:Chef-singh.jpg
- File:CAM00050-1 - Copy.jpg
- File:Our PM visit our hotel.jpg
- File:Long Service award.jpg
- File:Next 2.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 13:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
personal img. not in commons scoope Saqib (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
personal img. not in commons scoope Saqib (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
personal img. not in commons scoope Saqib (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on two team group shots, and two logos (one has five copies).
- File:На главную.jpg
- File:Первый логотип.png
- File:Бриллиант 2008.jpg
- File:Логотип Бриллиант 4.jpg
- File:Логотип Бриллиант 3.jpg
- File:Логотип Бриллиант 2.jpg
- File:Логотип Бриллиант 1.jpg
- File:Логотип Бриллиант.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Branko1991 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs: These are all stated source unknown/author unknown. Therefore they cannot be licensed by uploader.
- File:Klaus-Detlef Bergener.JPG
- File:Dirk Dettmer.jpg
- File:Wolfgang Sieloff.jpg
- File:SEK-Beamter Rüdiger Schwedow.jpg
- File:SEK-Beamter Ulrich Zastrutzki.jpg
- File:Organigramm SEK-Thueringen.jpg
- File:Organigramm SEK-Schleswig-Holstein.jpg
- File:Organigramm SEK-Bremen.jpg
- File:Organigramm SEK Niedersachsen.jpg
- File:Allegonda Muriel Gremmer.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by رامین کاکاوند (talk · contribs)
[edit]Newspapers, magazine covers, radio broadcast, promo images. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Daraje honari low reso.jpg
- File:UV Light PhotoGraphy (3).jpg
- File:UV Light PhotoGraphy (2).jpg
- File:UV Light PhotoGraphy (1).jpg
- File:IR PhotoGraphy (3).jpg
- File:IR Panorama.jpg
- File:IR PhotoGraphy (2).jpg
- File:IR PhotoGraphy (1).jpg
- File:DreamLight Magazine 8.jpg
- File:Ketab NoorPardazi 1.jpg
- File:Ketab NoorPardazi 2.jpg
- File:Jelde Ketab Hoghoghe Akkasan.jpg
- File:Barname Jame Jam.jpg
- File:Inside Soroush banovan.jpg
- File:Front Page Soroush banovan.jpg
- File:Varamin Class Report.jpg
- File:Negarkhane Barg.jpg
- File:Kanon Noorpardazi Report.jpg
- File:Milad Tower Exibition.jpg
- File:Ahvaz Exibition.jpg
- File:Mosahebe Ramin kakavand - Rozname Tabnak.jpg
- File:Vakil Khod Bashid - Ketabe Hafte.jpg
- File:Mosahebe Ramin kakavand - Radio Farhang.ogg
- File:Ramin-Kakavand.jpg
- File:Ramin Kakavand.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a selfie, I don't see any encyclopedic use for such a photo, plus the tshort design could be copyrighted. Teemeah (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Jcb (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Selfie, needs permission of subject Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- + Not in use according to Com:EDUSE soon. Fan selfie used on TV Series article, won't survive there. Unclear (c)status. Author claims ownership for two selfies, one taken by as male, the other by a female. All other uploads since 2015 deleted. Can't find any reason for Com:AGF. To be honest: Com:PCP should be applied. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
earlier versions found + selfie without permission of author Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status / out of scope. FDMS 4 00:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No information as to the date or manner of original publication. Ebay source provides next to no information about the image and cannot support the claim that this is a free image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- We need, at an absolute minimum, to be able to see the full front and back of the photograph, to look for marks indicating possible copyright and publication. Also, 'generic' images about such material never being copyrighted are not acceptable on Commons. Reventtalk 00:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No information provided as to the date or manner of the original publication, or even that the image had been published before the ebay listing. The ebay listing is expressly described as a "new" print, and we have no way to determine what copyright statements were made on the original image. No support for the claim that this is a free image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- We need, at an absolute minimum, to be able to see the full front and back of the photograph, to look for marks indicating possible copyright and publication. Also, 'generic' images about such material never being copyrighted are not acceptable on Commons. Reventtalk 00:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No information provided as to the date or manner of the original publication, or even that the image had been published before the ebay listing. The ebay listing is expressly described as a recent reproduction, and we have no way to determine what copyright statements were made on the original image. No support for the claim that this is a free image The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- We need, at an absolute minimum, to be able to see the full front and back of the photograph, to look for marks indicating possible copyright and publication. Also, 'generic' images about such material never being copyrighted are not acceptable on Commons. Reventtalk 00:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No information provided as to the date or manner of the original publication, or even that the image had been published before the ebay listing. The ebay listing is expressly described as a recent reproduction, and we have no way to determine what copyright statements were made on the original image. No support for the claim that this is a free image The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- We need, at an absolute minimum, to be able to see the full front and back of the photograph, to look for marks indicating possible copyright and publication. Also, 'generic' images about such material never being copyrighted are not acceptable on Commons. Reventtalk 00:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
License is wrong. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Also:
Likely non-notable family tree. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Added JPG version to this DR. FDMS 4 14:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Likely is a very vague term. How can you decide that it is a non-notable family. I would like to draw your attention that approximately 10 lakh people are directly related with this family tree. Therefore please don't nominate it for deletion. Regards, --Michaellko (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Michaellko
- Delete per above. FDMS 4 14:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete With no useful description or categories, this is useless no matter who is on it. Do any of the people named have articles in WP? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Corrupted PDF, likely out of scope anyway Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Commons is not dropbox. Out of scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ruchika Gulati (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal image : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
unused personal images : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashokkumarwikipedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal image : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mabinodraj (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal image : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Walterfantauzzi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern artworks : need an OTRS permission from the artit(s)
- File:Impianto cocleare.jpg
- File:I due regni italia.jpg
- File:Giochi di carte.jpg
- File:Occhio del la aquila.jpg
- File:Il maestro dipinge.jpg
- File:Il pittore carlo fantauzi.jpg
Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Clearly not 'own work', in either case (which are from different uploaders) - both exist elsewhere on the net, including official websites, and are too complex to be below the threshold of originality. Peru only excludes government works that are "official texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character", which does not apply here. Reventtalk 05:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Very poor quality image of unidentfied location - no encyclopedic use therefore out of scope Optimist on the run (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Very poor quality image of unidentfied location - no encyclopedic use therefore out of scope Optimist on the run (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Very poor quality image of unidentfied location - no encyclopedic use therefore out of scope Optimist on the run (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Unused, non-photographic JPEG. Superseded by a PNG. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Vanity/promotional image used in now-deleted article at en.wp. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Vanity/promotional image used in now-deleted article at en.wp. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Vanity/promotional image used in now-deleted article at en.wp. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal images
--ghouston (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Source site gives CC-BY-NC-ND license which is not allowed in Commons. The left side of this image is apparently historical image by Santiago Ramón y Cajal (died 1934) but the right half is modern. MKFI (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Philip Melanchton (1497-1560). Kerkhervormer Rijksmuseum SK-A-2561.jpeg, same source, same resolution, but lacking full color profile. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Photo of the uploader claimed to be taken by himself but obviously not. No accurate attribution. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Personal artwork, unused, the uploader's only contribution. No potential educational value. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Metadata states that copyright belongs to "Nancy Rothstein Photography". Kelly (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Only photo by uploader, being a low quality blurred 'selfie' of no educational value to the project Acabashi (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
unnecessary Dreizung (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a photograph. We need to know 1) Who took the original photo, 2) when it was taken, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata. Neither Berniceeaso nor Bernice Easo isn't mentioned neither in en.wiki, es.wiki nor in it.wiki. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Created by a sock puppet of globally-locked nuisance editor Alec Smithson, who has a history of copyright violations; apparently lifted from her Facebook page here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Unused map with uncertain importance, the uploader's only contribution. Google translates file description is "test picture". Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Dublicate of Daan Roosegaarde.jpg Martin K. (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://ploiesteanulonline.blogspot.md/ // Gikü said done Monday, 17 October 2016 10:34 (UTC) 10:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
copyvio: http://www.reporterntv.ro/stire/-136 // Gikü said done Monday, 17 October 2016 10:35 (UTC) 10:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Source (online logo designer with template images) states "License: Non exclusive Logo Templates – Users must purchase a license to use the symbols"... this implies that the users cannot re-license. Storkk (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sachin Jazze (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal images of no quite notable people (unknow at ENWiki) : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
self promotion Cabayi (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
photo privé sans intérêt encyclopédique, seule contribution de l'utilisateur Havang(nl) (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Photo privé sans intérêt encyclopédique, seule contribution de l'utilisateur Havang(nl) (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Copy from homepage Migebert (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This 1943 drawing is not anonymous. It is signed "T. Lempereur" in the lower left corner (see [1] for a higher resolution). I could not find the date of the death of this artist, but it is probably not in the public domain in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the signature should be read "J. Lempereur" and the artist is probably Jules Gustave Lempereur (1902-1985) (see [2]). It will enter the public domain in Belgium in 2056. BrightRaven (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shivamsinghsoni7 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful.
- File:Dynamique de population proies-prédateurs.jpg
- File:Dynamique d'une population de proies et prédateurs.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Notice printing in lower edge which shows true source is likely twitter. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hermenegildo Domingos Kumaleha (talk · contribs)
[edit]Religions brochures. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:CB8. A palavra de Deus e o conflito.pdf
- File:CB2. Os símbolos das profecias.pdf
- File:CB4. A estratégia do inimigo.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this passed a flickr review, but the bot couldn't see that the source picture (the only other picture in the flickr gallery) is marked (C) all rights reserved. Making this crop from that picture also (C) all rights reserved. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Ellin Beltz, the owner was contacted and the status was changed as originally intended. Crimescrutineer (talk)
- Fast work, thank you.
I withdraw my nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. --lNeverCry 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Musicman87 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://cdn.ticketfly.com/i/00/02/18/38/41-atlg.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jose Miguel Rodriguez de Carvalho (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical paintings. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:María Reparadora.jpg
- File:María Madre de Misericordia y Paz Estampa Mexicana.jpg
- File:Apoteosis de San Pablo de la Cruz.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jose Miguel Rodriguez de Carvalho (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical paintings. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Nuestra Señora de la Santa Esperanza.jpg
- File:Nuestra Señora del Consuelo.jpg
- File:Virgen del Buen Camino S.J.jpg
- File:Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia.jpg
- File:María Auxiliadora Entera.jpg
- File:Nuestra Señora del Perpetuo Socorro.jpg
- File:Beato Vicente Eugenio Bossilkov.jpg
- File:Nuestra Señora de Kazan.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- File:María Auxiliadora Entera.jpg. This is a painting of Mary Help of Christians (ca. 1867) by Tomas Andres Lorenzone (1824-1902), at the request of Don Bosco [3]. It is located in the Basilica of Our Lady Help of Christians, Turin, Italy. --Gabriel Sozzi (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Gabriel Sozzi: Can you add the correct author (with dates) in the relative pages? Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 23:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Thank you for your attention. Here it is. There are at least two more files on this matter: 1 and 2. Regards. --Gabriel Sozzi (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Gabriel Sozzi: Can you add the correct author (with dates) in the relative pages? Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 23:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: all but one are PD old. Template:Eugene Zelenko can you please refrain nominating file that are PD for more than 10 centuries please :). Ruthven (msg) 07:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://nopainld.itranspopmed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/firstteam.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Luminous99 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://diymag.com/media/img/Artists/C/Cats-Eyes/_1500x1000_crop_center-center_75/NewCatsEyespresspic.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. Should be cropped to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nataliya Hovorkova (talk · contribs)
[edit]Здравствуйте, этим работам больше 70ти лет и они уже public domain, они входят в мою личную коллекцию. Художник является мне родственником и я в знак памяти о нем хочу поделиться архивом с другими. Historical drawings and photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Imilda.stichiniage.jpg
- File:Salazar.teixeira.cabral.jpg
- File:Galeria.up.teixeira.cabral.jpg
- File:Teixeira.cabral.dantas.jpg
- File:Gaspar Simões por Teixeira Cabral, 1932.jpg
- File:Teixeira.cabral.auto.jpg
- File:Teixeira.cabral.self.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What is copyrights status of Bhutan's currency?
- File:Nu100-r-2011.jpg
- File:Nu100-o-2011.jpg
- File:Nu500-r.jpg
- File:Nu500-o.jpg
- File:Nu100-r.jpg
- File:Nu100-o.jpg
- File:Nu50-r.jpg
- File:Nu20-r.jpg
- File:Nu50-o.jpg
- File:Nu20-o.jpg
- File:Nu10-r.jpg
- File:Nu10-o.jpg
- File:Nu5-o.jpg
- File:Nu5-r.jpg
- File:Nu1-r.jpg
- File:Nu1-o.jpg
- File:Nu500-r-2000.jpg
- File:Nu500-o-2000.jpg
- File:Nu1 - 1979.jpg
- File:Ch50 - 1979.jpg
- File:Ch25 - 1979.jpg
- File:Ch20 - 1974.jpg
- File:Nu1000-r.jpg
- File:Nu1000-o.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
What is copyrights status of Lebanon's currency?
- File:1000LBP-r.jpg
- File:1000LBP-o.jpg
- File:5000LBP-r.jpg
- File:5000LBP-o.jpg
- File:10000LBP-o.jpg
- File:10000LBP-r.jpg
- File:20000LBP-r.jpg
- File:50000LBP-r.jpg
- File:50000LBP-o.jpg
- File:20000LBP-o.jpg
- File:100000LBP-o.jpg
- File:100000LBP-r.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination/COM:PRP. --lNeverCry 22:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What is copyrights status of Jordan currency? Will be good idea to expand Commons:Currency.
- File:JOD 50 Reverse.jpg
- File:JOD 50 Obverse.jpg
- File:JOD 20 Reverse.jpg
- File:JOD 20 Obverse.jpg
- File:JOD 10 Obverse.jpg
- File:JOD 10 Reverse.jpg
- File:JOD 5 Reverse.jpg
- File:JOD 5 Obverse.jpg
- File:JOD 1 Obverse.jpg
- File:JOD 1 Reverse.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - if we don't know, we have to assume that they are copyrighted. --Jcb (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
What is copyrights status of Israel's currency? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
coppy from Rose and Sand Islands.jpg Mauerquadrant (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
potentially copyright issues as missing EXIF data to verify claimed own work of this 2011 photograph, which also is not in use at Wikimedia Commons project, rather of personal interest - your opinions? Roland zh (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Vs.abbott
[edit]- File:2.space technology Physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, aerospace scientist Fang ruida aerospace technology research design principle structure diagram - Fig.jpg
- File:DC100101203306.jpg
- File:Fangruida and Fangruida classic Quotes.2012.jpg
- File:Fangruida image 2015=06.jpg
- File:Fangruida image 2015-03.jpg
- File:Fangruida image 2015-05.jpg
- File:Fangruida image2.Physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, aerospace scientist Rita Fang.jpg
- File:Fangruida image2015-02.jpg
- File:Fangruida image3.Physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, aerospace scientist Rita Fang.jpg
- File:Fangruida images 2015-04.jpg
- File:Fangruida images.jpg
- File:Fig.6Physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, aerospace scientist Fang ruida aerospace technology research design principle structure diagram - Fig.jpg
- File:Fig.7. Physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, aerospace scientist Fang ruida aerospace technology research design principle structure diagram - Fig.jpg
- File:Fig3.Physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, aerospace scientist Fang ruida aerospace technology research design principle structure diagram - Fig.jpg
- File:Fig4.Physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, aerospace scientist Fang ruida aerospace technology research design principle structure diagram - Fig.jpg
- File:Mars tech.Fangruida space.jpg
- File:Mars-Space tech.fig5Physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, aerospace scientist Fang ruida aerospace technology research design principle structure diagram - Fig.jpg
- File:Mars-space technology fangruida fig1.jpg
- File:Physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, aerospace scientist Rita Fang image 1Fangruida.jpg
These images were all uploaded by User:Vs.abbott. I believe they should be deleted because they are all null images (0x0 pixels), apparently only loaded for self-promotion on the file description page. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
copyvio, derivative work of the protected game board h-stt !? 16:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- delete, out of scope --Gampe (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
copyvio, derivative work of the protected game board h-stt !? 16:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from author Frandroid is needed. Taivo (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
the author of the photos are not only known book 2016 is known, the publication date of the year - the photo can be unfree НоуФрост (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
the author of the photos are not only known, the photo can be unfree НоуФрост (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
the author of the photos are not only known book 2014 is known, the publication date of the year - the photo can be unfree НоуФрост (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
it's blurry. failed image. Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agree: not even artistically blurred, just a bad photo, and it doesn't show the project in good light. Acabashi (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
source is external website without clear license status, portrayed person is indicated as author, who by-the-way seems not to meet the notability criteria of de.wikipedia. So we have doubtful data and a file which is probably out of scope. → «« Man77 »» [de] 16:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, no permission. Image in lower resolution: http://www.carolinefischer.com/gallery/persoenliche-erinnerungen-personal-memories/kohl-herzog-caro-2.jpg Wdwd (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Applies also to:
--Wdwd (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Einstein2 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic Hansmuller (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic Hansmuller (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic Hansmuller (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic Hansmuller (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic Hansmuller (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. FDMS 4 17:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic Hansmuller (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
gettyimages NeverDoING (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
very small Hiddenhauser (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. Фото встречается в Интернете до загрузки на Викисклад https://www.google.ru/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitqxEZv5MLCyY8Ux20JQdD-desjYXyNtlflPc7KQ4owed-R5MsKdxePeG2YG4RKRC-WGYthYnfj28jzc6oYlDg4P2JEO0ZGranUPymTHASqUGDSkFdTNLaP2VAwWNX-kX4RL0XlQ0yYaLfk15HW5Rs8-KE4PLP53m2V8tRccn1mZAquQGdRu_1Mbl2r57U01fsp7eEOR6cgda8bivbzlWjonBbS2JoUnTpoi2DaFxwJEqphML7_1w53wPylkRpqHEJDUU3EcaDvwPgAJCoiLkkDjIOi3CD4pJgfdNSxmlIh4f52O6vM5tppkndxV5XNp7UGR0d6uoZyadrVyKT7FbxUTNjoHRvsO2IMuPy22_18IZ21hcBb-rE6REqpObpPAAoh3tHwCDxRSk9cCH6R9wRg1KizTBn_1rK8wv1cm-YmeCCmOQ80ZyMBPJY_19XK9yJChAqgOfifbRqUfoII7kAH6ObX_1_1YJt5NXInRD2fWI3mXDQWDe49ZxXJ3uSKNXkLYxASV5mNDO7yettuNXJrD8EIJbc0KlEGmJCrcJal7ADkZ4PMY-I5C0ZJs3Ll-i3EgkxJcjX-Llkecj5TtYAu9U50kn_1EDVOevOzmVlXji0yx0B9T_15Rni0wCcwV91AULDq90IzW_1_1Vvt3w5tn5uRSE0qI8AkChtkKSyqWBJ-kdIGv15JjQ-2_14aiNBfs3xb0gHwrZ9rjNIlX3jFyRGeaVkmhfK9YzqgKJwezCEWAgZhaHBp6oncn-U2Y2wgYkZhokVKYjfAE2rkJ2rFWcRq5e2NqBTG9O0HvMtnqoozUykM7zzRT5wJCAeqJfkQNjmYdXVg0keuvfsr_1kb4cDKWqV6bdEICmk0siBf23baKCDMd8s55njig85Zm0mZ8pvwA9Ld9dLYzvf5saFOQqyD_1wLBCCsEqNrO9Mnn5BpDXANtsBPGg6QS5Ef7-zS49RGdvN3LXXQEfgDH_1DmiZ6AGIF8be8jbfTl_1Y0SBaYlKyxCz_1BPyFx1NDOEoO6N94V0ciA-A_1RH_1qAV-DWvFKxOATZcBpy0XP7rQ-za5rsEnVOdtt_1yiAkDdKaRi6OUmQiJQPS-v3agdsfSlt2H8UH3qK08K0HFb4PC7KZ39PAU7FNVJIutceS575Cp4NmV9AF_1vL6f08VVYDBuvDHiPZmmRkV-Mw2sWBHzXWq85CE44vDy2v_1ApMlJr7RG1l73BPlArM4zFk_17SlcoIFxU58wbYxDdCojlrEiyEm55Y5wOXJxhayIFJqY42xc8XeRumSaT8XroMyRRWI1YQy2STCRn-HAWoFvrqYUJj7OG5weE8fviMvvlBrIgaAJ99YpJZXmUlOWcI6lM63Bsq2dU6TCkJ81g1Q5Oodf4XC1T8M8mPSXKz43gyaWEWoNxpL2hys-EPqieLl4EGYfAHi6dpQBKDSEWlHRyroDhoYWxhTdQ1HWRKcQIUZ-V6uDX2GPvPtz4QuPcn6yhvckK1CQNv0jQkz_1ip8hNEPAYGPgeeuxAK3WF3TVrUNUP_1vZsxpeg_1T9R7J2fMhPuLCofmyptV_1SXkg1Q8gtq08WcUIGx5r6YlcmwEv6wCAULWyMbeAvt-5MBRQObqvjba0PiVxB9M-EygPwrcg8XNQlu2wZJq9ZajyiB3ichE9lDvPpSrJgGL0MpjKzSBmb_1DSH6qWMcezopWxM8iiQMbOQs8vpkcC5DF3k9BGYvZdvHzNIbo&hl=ru Dogad75 (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The source and author both say, in Russian, "personal photo". If this is actually a photo taken by the uploader, then she must say so. If not, then the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Not likely to be uploader's own work: professional quality recording, uploaded by user with history of copyright violations. Rights to this recording appear to belong to Jayce San Rafael Animalparty (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope (no constructive mainspace contribs). FDMS 4 19:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
random shot without an educational use, as well as File:Sin embargo.jpg, File:Por que.jpg, File:Quien.jpg, File:A que.jpg, File:D0onde.jpg Pibwl (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
unused diagram, out of scope Pibwl (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
unused table, out of scope Pibwl (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Apocheir
[edit]- File:Breakdown 3 2 hex.png
- File:Breakdown 3 2 tri.png
- File:Breakdown Class 1.png
- File:Breakdown Class 2.png
- File:Breakdown Class 3.png
- File:Breakdown order 2 modification.png
- File:Geodesic breakdown 3 2.png
- File:Geodesic grid order 2 3d.png
- File:Geodesic order 2 adj.png
- File:Geodesic order 2.png
- File:Method1 12 0 comparison.png
- File:Method1 12 0.png
- File:Method2 2 1.png
- File:Method2 4 0.png
- File:Method2 4 4.png
- File:Projection comparison.png
- File:Spherical Triangle Vertices.png
- File:Subdivision 1 to 3.png
- File:Subdivision 1 to 4.png
These are diagrams that were only used in my Wikibook on geodesic grids. I've replaced them all with SVG versions. Nothing links to these files any longer (well, except OgreBot), so there's no reason to keep the PNG versions around. --Apocheir (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Probably from http://ronnlid.se/personportratt/psykisk-ohalsa/jag-har-lart-mig-leva-med-sjukdomen/ without permission. And, is it a notable person? GeorgHH • talk 19:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Rebecca is not a notable person. Private image without educational content.
GeorgHH • talk 19:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
copyvio from justjared - http://www.justjared.com/photo-gallery/130861/sarah-michelle-gellar-chanel-dinner-03/ Ebyabe (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Probably from http://historiamundialandrea.blogspot.de/ Permission is needed. GeorgHH • talk 20:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted content (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Moscow_ticket_"Troyka".jpg) Dogad75 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal phoro without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, watermark Davila in bottom right corner, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope, copyright violation is possible too. Taivo (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
These unused and unidentified logos probably don;t have a copyright in the USA, but do in the UK. There is no evidecne of permission to use them. But, in any event, without categories or useful descriptions and no indications of notability, they are useless.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No information provided as to the date or manner of the original publication, or even that the image had been published before the ebay listing. The ebay listing is expressly described as a recent reproduction, and we have no way to determine what copyright statements were made on the original image. No support for the claim that this is a free image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
As uploader confessed, the file is taken from Instagram. Small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Probably copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sharmalakshya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 00:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 00:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mysterycontributor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 00:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Neelhgajjar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 01:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SatchelMann (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 01:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by NejeebBello (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 01:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MathiasWP99 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 01:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FrancescoBiraglia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 01:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KUNDADIABASE (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 01:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Neo Geo RD (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 01:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE lNeverCry 01:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE lNeverCry 01:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
per COM:ADVERT lNeverCry 01:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
per COM:ADVERT
lNeverCry 01:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE lNeverCry 01:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chalermyos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 02:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WaqasAliReal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 02:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashwin5131 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Ashwin at Mt.Stok kangri shoulder holding card.jpg
- File:At Matheran hills during his practice trek.jpg
- File:Ashwin self portrait.jpg
- File:Ashwin at stok kangri shoulder with flag.jpg
lNeverCry 02:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by UsefulHelpings (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal/promotional images
- File:Pop-A-Lot Vibe shoot.jpg
- File:Promo Flyer 2.jpg
- File:Pop-A-Lot 11x17 Promo Flyer.jpg
- File:Pop-A-lot Live from Bad News.jpg
- File:Pop-A-lot Posted In the hood.jpg
- File:Pop-A-Lot during forgiveth video shoot.jpg
- File:Pop-A-Lot feeding the negiborhood.jpg
- File:Pop-A-Lot in the Hood.jpg
- File:Pop-A-Lot The Rapper.jpg
lNeverCry 02:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 02:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE lNeverCry 02:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE - badly blurred lNeverCry 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE lNeverCry 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE lNeverCry 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
no COM:EDUSE lNeverCry 02:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
使用先のja.wikipedia.org JR東海キハ25形気動車において、過剰なまでに自治を行う投稿者がいるため、善意で提供した全ての写真を引き上げたい。削除の確認後にアカウントも削除させていただきたく思います。 Rudona69 (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Nominator (author of images) apparently no longer wishes to allow his images to be used on Wikipedia projects, but this is not a valid reason for deletion from Commons. As per Commons:Licensing, licenses are non-revocable. --DAJF (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
使用先のja.wikipedia.org JR東海キハ25形気動車において、過剰なまでに自治を行う投稿者がいるため、善意で提供した全ての写真を引き上げたい。削除の確認後にアカウントも削除させていただきたく思います。 Rudona69 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Nominator (author of images) apparently no longer wishes to allow his images to be used on Wikipedia projects, but this is not a valid reason for deletion from Commons. As per Commons:Licensing, licenses are non-revocable. --DAJF (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
使用先のja.wikipedia.org JR東海キハ25形気動車において、過剰なまでに自治を行う投稿者がいるため、善意で提供した全ての写真を引き上げたい。削除の確認後にアカウントも削除させていただきたく思います。 Rudona69 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Nominator (author of images) apparently no longer wishes to allow his images to be used on Wikipedia projects, but this is not a valid reason for deletion from Commons. As per Commons:Licensing, licenses are non-revocable. --DAJF (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
使用先のja.wikipedia.org JR東海キハ25形気動車において、過剰なまでに自治を行う投稿者がいるため、善意で提供した全ての写真を引き上げたい。削除の確認後にアカウントも削除させていただきたく思います。 Rudona69 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Nominator (author of images) apparently no longer wishes to allow his images to be used on Wikipedia projects, but this is not a valid reason for deletion from Commons. As per Commons:Licensing, licenses are non-revocable. --DAJF (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
使用先のja.wikipedia.org JR東海キハ25形気動車において、過剰なまでに自治を行う投稿者がいるため、善意で提供した全ての写真を引き上げたい。削除の確認後にアカウントも削除させていただきたく思います。 Rudona69 (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Nominator (author of images) apparently no longer wishes to allow his images to be used on Wikipedia projects, but this is not a valid reason for deletion from Commons. As per Commons:Licensing, licenses are non-revocable. --DAJF (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
使用先のja.wikipedia.org JR東海キハ25形気動車において、過剰なまでに自治を行う投稿者がいるため、善意で提供した全ての写真を引き上げたい。削除の確認後にアカウントも削除させていただきたく思います。 Rudona69 (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Nominator (author of images) apparently no longer wishes to allow his images to be used on Wikipedia projects, but this is not a valid reason for deletion from Commons. As per Commons:Licensing, licenses are non-revocable. --DAJF (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SIJITH KUMAR K S (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 22:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 22:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 22:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
per COM:ADVERT lNeverCry 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal/promo image lNeverCry 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Image appears to be a movie still, from the source, and not covered by the Bollywood Hungama OTRS ticket.
The page (http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/photos/audio-release/audio-release-of-dil-chahta-hai-5/) for the event described in the description does not show this image, or anything similar. Reventtalk 05:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize, but the site has been having some problems which cause links to be redirected. It was fine when I uploaded it yesterday. Perhaps (http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movie/dil-chahta-hai/photos/) this is better? -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 17:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ: My understanding of that ticket (and how I believe that it's generally understood) is that the images need to specifically be the the "Parties & Events" section, and not the "Movie Stills" section, of the website. Because of their javascript I seem unable to link it directly, but while it's 'always' in the header on that page, it shows up in the bottom "content" are when I follow the "16 photos" link under "Movie Stills". I'm not sure that BH actually 'owns' it. Reventtalk 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, and that was how it was much before Bollywood Hungama updated their site. When that happened, a lot of the older images were lost. I was actually responsible in speaking with Bollywood Hungama and getting this license installed. They have photographers attend premieres, media events, etc who are then responsible for uploading the pictures on the website. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 17:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Movie stills are not included in BH license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I will make a new page. Tisitnupak (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
nouvelle version Rayman78 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep le fichier / Keep the file. Mauvaise idée d'avoir ajouté les limites de département. Cela n'apporte rien d'intéressant et la carte perd en visibilité.--Pitthée (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Not clearly superseded. BrightRaven (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
il est remplacé Rayman78 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
il est remplacé par un fichier à jour Rayman78 (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - please do not ask again. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
remplacer par un autre fichier Rayman78 (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Pitthée in the first nomination, this is not superseded. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
pour le remplacer Rayman78 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: on peut remplacer le fichier en téléchargeant par dessus. Ruthven (msg) 07:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
remplacé par une version à jour Rayman78 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep What's changed since all the other times this was nominated for deletion that makes this of no historical value? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
car il est remplacé Rayman78 (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
il est remplacé par un fichier à jour Rayman78 (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - please do not ask again. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Remplacé par un autre fichier Rayman78 (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate of File:Carte region naturelle.jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since) Fæ (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- If my reading is correct, the image was taken from the author's book published in 1891. The author died in 1918. The text of the work quoted is available as public domain based on a link supplied in the Czech language version of the Wikipedia article about him. There seems no reason to doubt the statement by the uploader was given in good faith, and no reason was given as part of the no-source template which appears to have ignored the image page text. Keep
- Just to spell out the facts, if the image page history is examined, the no-source template was repeatedly revert-warred over despite a source being given. Images on Commons do not require a hyperlinked source, there just needs to be an explanation of why they are of an appropriate copyright status. Public domain materials should never be bureaucratically deleted as "no source" in these circumstances. --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I clarified the matter with some routine clean-up. Judging from the page history, a reversion is likely, and a block threat might ensue. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Image is PD based on age. Offnfopt(talk) 10:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and trout Jcb. The source has been on the file page since the image was uploaded, and easily verified. See https://books.google.com/books?id=dcfUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PT520 (it's even had the correct page number since the day it was uploaded). Reventtalk 12:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per my initial comments that the source was always there, so no source argument was never valid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I could find that the depicted person died in 1918, but not that the author (is photographer) died in 1918 as Fæ states. There is no good reason provided why we should consider this picture an anonymous work, so the copyright situation is unknown and, if we follow our regulations, the file has to be deleted unless we find information about the photographer - Jcb (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please actually read what was written by me, and take time to understand it. It appears that you have failed to understand what CZ IP law is, or for that matter Commons policy is, for published photographs with unknown photographers. I agree with Revent about the facts of this image and the fundamental incompetence of it being unthinkingly templated as no-source when it always had a source. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jcb: The image had a source. Clearly. As far as copyright, while I do not read Czech, it seems clear the image is described as having been taken in 1880, 135 years ago. Since Czech copyright is 70 years p.m.a., simple math tells us the photographer would have to have survived 65 years after taking the photograph for it to still be in copyright.... probably to the age of at least 80, since it was unlikely to have been taken by a child. I seriously doubt many people born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the mid-1860s, or earlier, were still alive after World War II, even if they died a natural death. The chances of this still being in copyright, especially since this was probably a studio image owned by the subject anyhow, are extremely small. Reventtalk 22:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jcb: Please see Template_talk:PD-anon-70-EU#Latest_revisions where a similar argument was discussed, and rejected. The consensus is that the burden of proof is on the party that claims the work is not anonymous (as proving the work is anonymous is near impossible, just like proving that let's say a picture you uploaded at File:Bayahíbe.jpg was really taken by you and not by your relative or friend etc.). Certain things have to be AGFed. See also en:Evidence of absence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep 1918+70<2016 B25es (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your calculation is faulty. If Eichler is the subject shown in the photograph, he's most likely not the photographer/copyright holder. In his days, portrait photographs were made by professional photographers, so we'd need the name and lifetime of the actual photographer to apply PD-old-70. De728631 (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Here is what looks like a full text-only version of the book in question. Unfortunately it doesn't have page numbers either but can someone with a knowledge of Czech please have a look if this portrait is attributed anywhere? According to Google Translator, the introduction credits a certain Fr. E. Slovák for providing photographs of "objects" discussed in the text, but it doesn't say anything about the portrait photo in particular. De728631 (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is the source that was quoted on the image at the beginning. It should never have been templated with 'no source'. As for the photographer, this remains unknown unless someone gets a copy of the book and looks at page 485 and discovers something different to 'unknown'. Strangely enough, that's not hard, you just go to WorldCat and look at libraries that stock it, there are plenty; http://www.worldcat.org/title/pameti-panstvi-veverskeho/oclc/81438185. The template {{disputed}} would have been sufficient to mark this scan of a 125 year old photograph for research, rather than threatening deletion within 7 days. We all know that once files like this are deleted, there is almost no chance that anyone will spend time researching them. --Fæ (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Fae: You apparently missed... the full text is available at https://books.google.com/books?id=dcfUAAAAMAAJ Reventtalk 23:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @De728631: also. Reventtalk 23:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Revent: No, Google does not display full text pages for this book but only snippet previews as they call it. De728631 (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @De728631: Apparently some national difference, I'm able to see the entire text. Without reading Czech... the image does not appear to be specifically attributed, but says "1880" in the caption. The chapters of the book appear to be chronologically ordered, with photos of people with dates, or date ranges, in the caption that match the chapter where they are used. It seems quite likely that the image was believed to be from 1880. Reventtalk 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for this update. I think we can keep this using
{{PD-art-two|PD-anon-70-EU|PD-1923}}. - For the purpose of this discussion, Revent has provided an extract. I'm now beginning to wonder about the lower left corner of the original photo print. Is that a tiny signature or name of sorts? De728631 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Even zoomed in all the way, it's indistinguishable, unfortunately. Reventtalk 00:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- https://ibin.co/2z43sJieigfh.png is the best it gets. Reventtalk 00:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- it looks like the numbers 701 to me. --Fæ (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for this update. I think we can keep this using
- @De728631: Apparently some national difference, I'm able to see the entire text. Without reading Czech... the image does not appear to be specifically attributed, but says "1880" in the caption. The chapters of the book appear to be chronologically ordered, with photos of people with dates, or date ranges, in the caption that match the chapter where they are used. It seems quite likely that the image was believed to be from 1880. Reventtalk 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Revent: No, Google does not display full text pages for this book but only snippet previews as they call it. De728631 (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is the source that was quoted on the image at the beginning. It should never have been templated with 'no source'. As for the photographer, this remains unknown unless someone gets a copy of the book and looks at page 485 and discovers something different to 'unknown'. Strangely enough, that's not hard, you just go to WorldCat and look at libraries that stock it, there are plenty; http://www.worldcat.org/title/pameti-panstvi-veverskeho/oclc/81438185. The template {{disputed}} would have been sufficient to mark this scan of a 125 year old photograph for research, rather than threatening deletion within 7 days. We all know that once files like this are deleted, there is almost no chance that anyone will spend time researching them. --Fæ (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep low risk item, waste of time, a print source you do not like is not "no source". this is a common behavior. i see there is deep skepticism (even perverse) about scanned items. i wish we could move to a triage system of: low risk items needing more research, and high risk items needing action, and turn this editor's attention to the latter. we would all be happier. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, per Fæ and Piotrus. This edit was clearly wrong. Many Commons images do not use {{Information}} template correctly, but that is no reason for deletion. --Jarekt (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: 1880 image. I use 1886 for a cutoff in pma 70 countries -- it's possible that someone took an 1860 image and lived to 1946, but I think 1880 is "beyond significant doubt". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Replaced by file with more informative name (part of a series of varying q) and smaller file size: 
Pdhall99 (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Replaced by file with more informative name (part of a series of varying q) and smaller file size: 
Pdhall99 (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Replaced by file with more informative name (part of a series of varying q) and smaller file size: 
Pdhall99 (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
seems to be above COM:TOO Evalina Generosa (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: It is just letters -- in the US, such an assemblage cannot have a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
No such ship as HMS Perfection Rcbutcher (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why? "HMS Perfection" is the name of one of the projects at the stage of conceptual design Invincible-class battlecruisers. See Roberts, John. Battlecruisers. — London: Chatham Publishing, 1997. — ISBN 1-86176-006-X, page 15. --Sas1975kr (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The diagram shows a ship with 16 guns. Nothing like the final Invincible class design with 8 guns. There were many "conceptional designs" on paper leading up to the actual finalised designs of any warship class, most of which bore little relation to the final product. Feel free to create a new category for this design if you feel it is justified. It could be a sub-category of the Invincible class if it was part of the design process. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rcbutcher. How this entailed deletion requests? If you see a need for a new sub-category - you can create it. I do not think it's necessary. This project an integral part of the design process Invincible class. See source or article in the ru-wiki - ru:Линейные крейсера типа «Инвинсибл». --Sas1975kr (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: In order to restore this, we would need some evidence that this looks like the actual preliminary design. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
il est remplacé Rayman78 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
il est remplacé par un fichier à jour Rayman78 (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
remplacé par un fichier mis a jour Rayman78 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
remplacé par un fichier mis a jour Rayman78 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - c'est pas une bonne raison pour l'effacer. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
remplacé par un autre fichier Rayman78 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, replacement not given, and in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate of File:Carte region naturelle.jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
もうどうでもいいから 春急代表 (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete user talk pages. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Иван Абатуров (talk · contribs)
[edit]photos of 3D works, the photos are copytightable, so a free source and a license must be provided for each files
- File:Кувшин с крылатым верблюдом Хорезм Соликамский уезд.png
- File:Утраченное блюдо с оленем и мировым древом.png
Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Не понял - почему к удалению? Оба файла точная репродукция изображения, находящегося в общественном достоянии Иван Абатуров (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The photos are copyrighted. They would be free only if the works shown were flat, but these are 3D. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
is Now 
Mauerquadrant (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
kein wirklicher professioneler Tennisspieler.-->no real existing tennis player Siebenschläferchen (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
obvious copyvio, see description. photo taken from picture on wall; author cannot be the person on photo. JD {æ} 19:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I have the permission of the author via twitter. User:Sssmaggotsss 21:50, 17 October 2016 (GMC)
- you asked for "use on wikipedia" [4] - this ain't a free licence. moreover, postel obviously isn't the author of the picture taken. --JD {æ} 13:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Requires a free license from the actual photographer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Cars in foreground detract from intended subject thereby rendering image not realistically usable for an educational purpose, and we have similar images without the intrusion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I have now cropped the cars out of the photo which I hope will alleviate Rodhullandemu's concerns. I don't think we need to delete the entire file since it is the only photographic record of the church on here from the year 2013. Rept0n1x (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: OK after change (I think it was OK before the change as well). . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
seems to be above COM:TOO Evalina Generosa (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep COM:TOO --47.150.68.26 21:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: obvious PD-textlogo. --Jcb (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DMacks as no source (No source since) but think this needs more explanation and cleaner closure. The given source appears to be just the generic URL for the wikipedia viewer interface. That's not a valid "soure" in terms of license-verification and attribution. The actual file being viewed is unknown. It's possibly File:RNA-codon.png, whose source/licensing look good, or similar. But the image is in use, and simply deleting as a source problem would be disruptive. But regardless, this image is also not specifically and uniquely useful and could easily be replaced by that other one. Therefore, I propose deleting and making this a redirect to that one, handling it as if it were a dup, even though it's not literally a dup (else I would just speedy it as such). DMacks (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and created redirect as proposed. --Jcb (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Bad quality picture (overexposed subject + deceptive colors) of a species which is already abundantly present in the database. LamBoet (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The picture shows the nickname of the photographer Angel del Moralː angel basé, who is the author of a blog with pictures of Sierra Mágina, Huelma and other places of the province of Jaén. It seems that the person who has uploaded the picture has fraudulently attributed to himself the authorship of the picture. Dani jaem (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no Freedom of Panorma in Iran. Also, the following files have the same problem:
- File:تهران-هتل آزادی 3.jpg
- File:تهران-مجموعه همایش های رایزن.jpg
- File:تهران-هتل ـآزادی2.jpg
- File:تهران-مترو-ایستگاه حقانی3.jpg
- File:تهران-مترو-ایستگاه حقانی6.jpg
- File:تهران-مترو-ایستگاه حقانی2.jpg
- File:تهران-مترو-ایستگاه حقانی4.jpg
Mhhossein talk 13:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep Cultural heritage monuments in Iran
- Are Azadi Hotel and metro stations cultural heritage monuments in Iran? Anyway, we don't have exceptions for them.--Mhhossein talk 06:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know about the modern building (File:تهران-هتل آزادی 3.jpg), but escalators (File:تهران-مترو-ایستگاه حقانی6.jpg) and trains (File:تهران-مترو-ایستگاه حقانی4.jpg)) are clearly OK. Yann (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: three per nomination, kept the rest per discussion. --Jcb (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Found elsewhere. The license is doubted and we'd better act based in COM:PRP. Mhhossein talk 13:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You are very fast. I have a permission which is recorded in OTRS. --Rlevente (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Withdrawn- Rlevente: I would not nominate it, if you had pasted the 'OTRS pending' template. --Mhhossein talk 16:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Mhhossein: There was only 5 minutes between my upload and your nominating. --Rlevente (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've raised an issue regarding that ticket. --Mhhossein talk 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've answered there.--Rlevente (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Per our communication available in ticket:2016081110007115, I'll withdraw. --Mhhossein talk 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've answered there.--Rlevente (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, we have an available permission. --Pallerti (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --Jcb (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
投稿時の手違いで予定外の 建機の黒子役 (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
投稿時の手違いで予定外を 建機の黒子役 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
投稿時の手違いで予定外の作品を投稿してしまいました。 建機の黒子役 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
投稿時の手違いで予定外を 建機の黒子役 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
投稿時の手違いで予定外の作品を投稿してしまいました。 建機の黒子役 (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
הדף חשוד, קובץ באיכות נמוכה מאד ובלי פרטים סבירים על מקורו ביקורת (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since) Fæ (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The no-source template on this image appears to ignore the facts and puts public domain works in jeopardy. Refer to fr:8e régiment d'artillerie for relevant sources. Using bureaucratic processes to put a photograph of a 1914 military emblem up for deletion seem very poor judgement when apparently no effort was made to examine the facts. Works like this do not need to have anything more than an explanation of why they are public domain, not every ancient or old work needs or requires a hyperlinked source to justify it being hosted on Commons. If this is a copyright violation I would very much like to see a detailed and legally watertight explanation of why. --Fæ (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Could you please write an explanation why the original item is safely in the public domain ? The Yeti 10:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- To start a 'non-PD' discussion, we would need to have a named artist. Otherwise the 70 year rule applies per COM:CRT. With regard to the copyright of the photograph, we should be able to accept Bloody-libu's assertion at face-value as a good faith upload of a personal collection. --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Could you please write an explanation why the original item is safely in the public domain ? The Yeti 10:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
{{vk}}
- Now withdrawing per persuasive analysis by User:Asclepias. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - 'collection personnelle' is a rather vague source. Who e.g. took the picture of the 3D object? It has no EXIF. If the uploader is not the photographer, this file is a violation of the copyright of the photographer - Jcb (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- "If", please supply some evidence beyond bad faith. It has never been Commons policy to delete all uploads by photographers on bad faith. If the uploader provided a link to the photo on Flickr nobody would challenge it, yet as factual evidence it is exactly the same as releasing on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can you prove that you took File:Bayahíbe.jpg and that it wasn't taken by your friend or relative? I think notarial statements from you and witnesses, and CCTV evidence would be beyond reasonable doubt. Can you produce them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- What a nonsense question. Well, at least I still have the hundreds of pictures I took that summer with the camera mentioned in the EXIF and I even think I still have that camera somewhere. Jcb (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- This file and others deleted (see my talk page) were imported on the French Wikipedia by Fantassin 72 (= Fantassin 72). I just transfered all the free-files of the French Wikipedia on Commons 5 years ago and I believed in the good faith of Fantassin 72. Bloody-libu (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Fæ. I don't think we need to doubt that this photo was from Fantassin72's personal collection. That's beyond assuming bad faith, considering that no evidence is supplied that this is not from a personal collection. And the photographing of this image lacks originality IMO, so the photographer (who ever it is) doesn't have copyright on this. --★ Poké95 00:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Striking my !vote per the doubts below. Moving to
Neutral. I still have a little bit AGF on Fantassin 72, but the delete !votes below make me doubt whether this is taken by Fantassin 72 or not. Kurzgesagt, I am not sure at this. I am thanking Fæ for converting this to a DR, otherwise, we would not have a clear discussion about this. --★ Poké95 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Striking my !vote per the doubts below. Moving to
- {{Vk}} the original object is the insignia of a regiment created in 1784. Most likely the designer died more than 70 years ago.
I do not see reason to doubt that Fantassin 72 took the photograph.The original file was uploaded in 2008 and lack of EXIF does not seem unusual for the files from that era. Also I do not think {{No source since}} should be used for files with source someone does not like. If you think source is wrong please use regular DR. --Jarekt (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, per Asclepias --Jarekt (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete In deference to the extended discussion above, I'm not going to delete this based on new information. However, I note that the image appears in two places on the Web with explicit copyright notices:
- This image is larger that the one we have and has an item number in the lower right. In our version, the item number has been painted out with a straight line across the bottom of the image, but the shadows, both on the right and at the top, make it very clear that it is the same photograph. Both the size and the item number prove that this one did not come from Commons, but the other way around.
- This is the same size, same image. I'm not sure what this site is -- It has a link to "Wikipédia en Français", but that link does not go to WP:FR. Given the fact that our image has been on Commons for five years, this could well have been taken from Commons without credit. And yes, a PD image does not require credit, but the PD tag is plainly false -- it is very unlikely that this color photograph is from 1914.
- So, given that there is a relatively recent color photograph of a 3D object on a copyrighted Web page that the Commons image was plainly derived from, I think that at the very least we need a license via OTRS. The argument that the photograph doesn't have a copyright goes against our Bridgeman policy which is explicitly limited to flat works. Under our policy, even photographs of coins have a copyright and this has more relief than a coin. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jim, those are very good points, with due dilligence showing, but what about COM:AGF concerning Fantassin 72’s own work claim? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jim, picclick is just an eBay harvesting site. If Fantassin ever advertised their personal collection on eBay, there's no surprise in finding the photo there, it does not logically disprove the photo is correctly on a free release here. --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Come on, folks -- how many "own work" claims do we see that are not correct? Here we have an image on a copyrighted web site that is both larger than and a predecessor to the one on Commons. Sure, it is possible that the uploader took the picture, used it on the other site, and then removed the item number and reduced the size, before uploading to Commons. However, most of us would have given Commons the larger version before the item number was added. It is possible, but it certainly raises a significant doubt. That is why we virtually always require OTRS if an image has appeared elsewhere with a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, of course — but it all hinges on trustable Fantassin 72 is. And Asclepias shown below he’s not — that sways my vote around. (The original "
no source" was still an error and should not have been done: A regular DR is the best way to deal with the matter, as this very page shows.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, of course — but it all hinges on trustable Fantassin 72 is. And Asclepias shown below he’s not — that sways my vote around. (The original "
- Come on, folks -- how many "own work" claims do we see that are not correct? Here we have an image on a copyrighted web site that is both larger than and a predecessor to the one on Commons. Sure, it is possible that the uploader took the picture, used it on the other site, and then removed the item number and reduced the size, before uploading to Commons. However, most of us would have given Commons the larger version before the item number was added. It is possible, but it certainly raises a significant doubt. That is why we virtually always require OTRS if an image has appeared elsewhere with a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Jameslwoodward. Many files uploaded by the user with claims of own work have been found to be copies. It can be argued if they were mistakes or misunderstandings or if the user has changed his habits, or if many of the images may actually be in the public domain in France, if not necessarily in the United States. Still, there can't be a blanket excuse and all his uploads should be looked at. To get a more complete picture, one must look at the logs of the different accounts of the user, on Commons and on fr.WP, and at the histories of their associated talk pages (often archived by the user, so don't look only at the last versions). Not an easy task, but you can start with logs of Commons account 1, logs of Commons account 2, talk page of Commons account 2, logs of the fr.WP account and talk page of the fr.WP account. Note that most of the user's uploads to Commons from 2007 were deleted, the user was blocked on Commons in 2007, he uploaded to fr.WP while he was blocked on Commons, he was unblocked on Commons in 2009, restarted to upload in 2009 with Commons account 2, while continuing to upload to fr.WP, then started to upload with Commons account 3. (A Commons account 4 may be related [5] but was apparently never used.) His uploads to Commons between 2009 and 2013 were probably not all examined. They probably should be. I see some that look like they might have been copied from elsewhere or that don't have evidence of permission. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Asclepias. In view of the above, no COM:AGF for Fantassin 72’s claim of own work, of course. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jim and Asclepias. There is very significant doubt that Fantassin_72 was the photographer. --Storkk (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I am taking this here because I am not sure if this should be deleted. The description is a postcard from c. 1900, which would make it public domain (see Template:Anonymous-EU). It is, however, missing a source. Can we keep it regardless? The image does look like a postcard from that period, so there is no reason to doubt this or its copyright status. I think this should be sufficient, and in line with commons precautionary principle, since identifying the author (whoever scanned it from whatever collection) should not change the copyright status. Any thoughts? PS. Ping User:Fæ. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's probably not 'anonymous', just 'unknown to us'. There was probably publisher information on the back. Searches don't find anything useful, however. Reventtalk 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there were some postcards which didn't attribute the author. Without being able to look on the backside, we cannot be sure. Further, what can we do in the case where the author name would be known, but no information about his date of death can be found? PS. Ping users who commented in related discussions recently: User:Fæ, User:Tuvalkin and User:Jcb (who originally tagged this a no source). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: It's not 'commons policy', specifically (it comes down to 'significant doubt') but the answer in the US, for a 'formal' copyright clearance, is in 17USC§302(e)...
After a period of 95 years from the year of first publication of a work, or a period of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first, any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing to indicate that the author of the work is living, or died less than 70 years before, is entitled to the benefits of a presumption that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. Reliance in good faith upon this presumption shall be a complete defense to any action for infringement under this title.
- Well, there were some postcards which didn't attribute the author. Without being able to look on the backside, we cannot be sure. Further, what can we do in the case where the author name would be known, but no information about his date of death can be found? PS. Ping users who commented in related discussions recently: User:Fæ, User:Tuvalkin and User:Jcb (who originally tagged this a no source). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- That would of course require actually 'contacting' the USCO, but that's generally a guideline to how I think about it, while making a 'best guess' as to the point to which the author is likely to have lived... any author of a work we care about was unlikely to have been under age 20, or to have lived above 70. If either their known date of birth, or the 'assumed' date based on creation, would have made them reach the age of 70, 70 years ago (in 1945) then the work is almost certainly PD... which adds up, conveniently, to 120 years from creation if we assume they were 20.
- Again, that's not policy, but it's my 'thumbrule' (modified for terms in other countries) when making assumptions. Very, very few people born in the 1800s would have lived over 70. Reventtalk 03:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed tip. So in this case, this can be assumed to be PD, yes? As any other outcome is very outlikely. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: It largely comes down to how much faith we place on the dating... the actual 'author' is probably 'unknown' (not truly 'anonymous', but never publicly attributed), and unknowable by any 'reasonable enquiry' even if we knew the publisher... the odds that such records have survived (the largest UK postcard publisher's records were a casualty of the Blitz) are small, and that assumes that they kept records that detailed. This points us at 70 year term for the EU, which gives us a 45 year window of 'wiggle room'... enough to make me feel comfortable. This might possibly be American (the legend is not definitive, I've seen US cards with French legends) but it simply doesn't look like one from the big company...it's not a 'Photochrom', so it's probably not (and the situation would be 'better' if it was). If we call it 1910, and assume the photographer was 'attributed' at some point, and the records survived, he'd still have to have lived 35 years after taking the image.... so this is 'probably' PD... not in the 'extremely unlikely' range, just 'quite improbable'. The 'worst case' is that it expires in about 2030, and it probably expired decades ago.
- I'd be more pessimistic if this was something other than a postcard, or dated even a decade later, but they rarely attributed the photographer, and like I said many records were destroyed. I would not pass this for "PD review", but I don't think we should delete it unless people think the date is particularly unreliable. Reventtalk 05:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed tip. So in this case, this can be assumed to be PD, yes? As any other outcome is very outlikely. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: There is no author or publisher name on the reverse: [6]. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- User:Jameslwoodward: Would you reconsider your vote due to Asclepias source showing both sides, and no attribution to author? This seems like a clear-cut Anonymous-EU case now, wouldn't it? So I could withdraw my nom and we could close this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: I can do better than simply changing my comment. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
As this is a work of the U.S. Army National Guard, refer to the Wikipedia article, it is unclear why the license given is incorrect. Fæ (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Source does not appear to be necessary for this PD work to satisfy precautionary principle/project's scope/any other deletion criteria I can think of. Also: that is ok but this wasn't? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - it's only PD if it is indeed a genuine US Army work, which typically can be demonstrated with a link to the image at a US Army website. @Piotrus: as fo the 'that is ok' file, that file has such a link in the description field. I vote keep or keep-close as soon as such a link is provided for this file - Jcb (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm uncomfortable with your closing of these DRs related to your actions. Please let them run for the 7 days and let someone else make the decision to close. As for links to US Government sites, that is not a requirement. Try a google search and form an opinion based on actual footprint and usage by military personnel. --Fæ (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care what you are uncomfortable with. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting, as you are getting personal, it seems fair to state that I don't believe in your competent application of policies any longer. But my view is based on a long trail of your tendentious behaviour and demonstrably bad decisions. --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care what you are uncomfortable with. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- This does rise a question of whether it is a derivative work of a public domain work, which I think it would be, and then it would fall under Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#2D_art_.28paintings_etc..29 -> PD-Art but it is not Art so it is just PD. Again, nothing suggests it wouldn't be PD either way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm uncomfortable with your closing of these DRs related to your actions. Please let them run for the 7 days and let someone else make the decision to close. As for links to US Government sites, that is not a requirement. Try a google search and form an opinion based on actual footprint and usage by military personnel. --Fæ (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note for closing admin. Please ensure that someone other than Jcb closes this deletion request as anything else is a direct conflict of interest and not in compliance with Commons:Deletion_policy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I will not delete-close it, but I feel completely free to keep-close if a proper source is provided. I don't see how that would break policy. The goal of a DR is to judge a file, not to create another podium where you can call me 'tendentious' as you have been doing everywhere for quite some time already. Jcb (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, such an action is not covered by policy, I suggest you read it carefully. Your actions on this file should be open to review for the full 7 days, not swept under the carpet if you happen to feel like it. Your comments in this DR show your tendentious behaviour. You are an administrator, please comply with the requirement on you to work positively with others. From your comments I doubt you have looked at en:82nd Cavalry Regiment, even though this was mentioned in the nomination, perhaps you should try that before continuing to argue that we need a hyperlink to a US Army website. --Fæ (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I will not delete-close it, but I feel completely free to keep-close if a proper source is provided. I don't see how that would break policy. The goal of a DR is to judge a file, not to create another podium where you can call me 'tendentious' as you have been doing everywhere for quite some time already. Jcb (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Briefly, see Category:82nd Cavalry Regiment Heraldry. That multiple uploaders cite the TIOH as the source for 'practically identical' versions of this same insignia, and that it would be allowable if 'genuine', seems adequate to me. Unfortunately, the source page is no longer available, and the Wayback Machine did not save the images, but it seems rather clearly 'authentic'. --Reventtalk 08:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
This logo is the property of the U.S. Army 82nd airborne. The license appears to be used in good faith. Alternative sources can be added based on a Google search if anyone wishes to do that. A better reason for deletion than 'no source' would be needed. Fæ (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Source does not appear to be necessary for this PD work to satisfy precautionary principle/project's scope/any other deletion criteria I can think of. Also: that is ok but this wasn't? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - it's only PD if it is indeed a genuine US Army work, which typically can be demonstrated with a link to the image at a US Army website. @Piotrus: as fo the 'that is ok' file, that file has such a link in the description field. I vote keep or keep-close as soon as such a link is provided for this file - Jcb (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm uncomfortable with your closing of these DRs related to your actions. Please let them run for the 7 days and let someone else make the decision to close. As for links to US Government sites, that is not a requirement. Try a google search and form an opinion based on actual footprint and usage by military personnel. --Fæ (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think Jcb is just voting, not closing, so we are good. This does rise a question of whether it is a derivative work of a public domain work, which I think it would be, and then it would fall under Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#2D_art_.28paintings_etc..29 -> PD-Art but it is not Art so it is just PD. Again, nothing suggests it wouldn't be PD either way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: I can only assume the person wanting to delete this as not PD is not a US citizen. The 82nd airborne division has used this unit insignia since it was founded in 1917... I'll just give http://www.82ndairbornedivisionmuseum.com/general-information/ as 'evidence', with an image of a WWI patch that features the same design. --Reventtalk 08:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
The license appears correct. If this is to be deleted as a copyright violation this needs an explanation based on a legally meaningful rationale. Fæ (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This raises the interesting question of can this image by copyrighted. As a US army insignia, the answer appears to be no. So while it would be nice to have a source, it does not seem like we need one (for satisfying precautionary principle). Source or no source, this is PD, and fits project's scope. Also: that is ok but this wasn't? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - it's only PD if it is indeed a genuine US Army work, which typically can be demonstrated with a link to the image at a US Army website. @Piotrus: as fo the 'that is ok' file, that file has such a link in the description field. I vote keep or keep-close as soon as such a link is provided for this file - Jcb (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm uncomfortable with your closing of these DRs related to your actions. Please let them run for the 7 days and let someone else make the decision to close. --Fæ (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think Jcb is just voting, not closing, so we are good. This does rise a question of whether it is a derivative work of a public domain work, which I think it would be, and then it would fall under Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#2D_art_.28paintings_etc..29 -> PD-Art but it is not Art so it is just PD. Again, nothing suggests it wouldn't be PD either way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: https://www.dvidshub.net/unit/82SB indicates that this is the actual unit insignia. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/82abn-discom.htm confirms. --Reventtalk 09:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since)
The license appears correct, this is a work of the 82d Cavalry. A better reason for deletion than 'no source' would be needed. Fæ (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Source does not appear to be necessary for this PD work to satisfy precautionary principle/project's scope/any other deletion criteria I can think of. Also: that is ok but this wasn't? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - it's only PD if it is indeed a genuine US Army work, which typically can be demonstrated with a link to the image at a US Army website. @Piotrus: as fo the 'that is ok' file, that file has such a link in the description field. I vote keep or keep-close as soon as such a link is provided for this file - Jcb (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm uncomfortable with your closing of these DRs related to your actions. Please let them run for the 7 days and let someone else make the decision to close. As for links to US Government sites, that is not a requirement. Try a google search and form an opinion based on actual footprint and usage by military personnel. --Fæ (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think Jcb is just voting, not closing, so we are good. This does rise a question of whether it is a derivative work of a public domain work, which I think it would be, and then it would fall under Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#2D_art_.28paintings_etc..29 -> PD-Art but it is not Art so it is just PD. Again, nothing suggests it wouldn't be PD either way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination while no source; may be undeleted if source found. --Jusjih (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vegetable as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://immobiliarecaserio.com/it/Casa_con_terrazzo_vista_mare_e_montagne_in_vendita_in_Molise_Mafalda_2133.html. Our version is larger and does not include the watermark, meaning that it probably wasn't copied from there. Original photographer/copyright holder should confirm the license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since) Reventtalk 12:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Image appears (see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dutchstudies/an/SP_LINKS_UCL_POPUP/SPs_english/flemish_movement/catholic.html ) to be a Dutch caricature from 1906. Reventtalk 12:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no information on the author provided, this is very unlikely to be an anonymous work, suchs works are normally not anonymous in the Netherlands - Jcb (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Might be a copyvio, but it is surely not, nor ever was, a matter of lacking a source. The only rational course of action is to wait for a boffin of Belgian cartoon history (there’s quite a few) to tell us who the author of this cartoon is. Meanwhile, let’s keep it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: 1906 -> PD. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Renominating after contacting closing admin. "1906 -> PD" is not a valid keep rationale of European works of course. E.g. Jameslwoodward uses 1886 as a cutoff. This may be dubious, but 1906 is obviously too young to assume PD. Dutch comics are very rarely published anonymously. The Netherlands and Belgium have been safe countries for at least the past 5 centuries, where you could publish any comic/criticism/whatever without bringing yourself in danger. Jcb (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The artist is unknown. Unless the nominator can provide some evidence that the artist can be determined, or that a legally identifiable person is making a (very odd and probably false) claim of publication rights, then Jim's personal rules of thumb, are not Commons policies, nor IP law. As for creating a new DR two days after the last one closed, this is wasting everyone's time. --Fæ (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete My 1886 rule of thumb is based on a photographer born 1866, taking the photo at age 20, and living to age 80 in 1946. About a third of all people born in the 1860s lived past 1946. By the time you get to 1906, the photographer had to live only another 40 years, so it is certainly easily possible -- way beyond a significant doubt -- that the photographer was living in 1946. And note that Jcb, who is Dutch, points out that "Dutch comics are very rarely published anonymously." . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Jim, your rule of thumb is not Commons policy. If the artist is unknown then this drawing is public domain as per current policies. If you wish to change the policies then that's something to make a proposal for. By the way, I make no presumptions about whether where volunteers happen to reside can indicate their understanding of that country's IP law or that of other countries. I find it better to judge that by their comments and actions on-wiki. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- This cartoon is likely from Belgium. Not the Netherlands. Which one is more likely? That a Dutch cartoonist created a cartoon about the Archbishop of Mechelen or that a Belgian cartoonist created an cartoon about the Archbishop of Mechelen? I am not sure why Jcb claims that The Netherlands and Belgium have been safe countries for at least the past 5 centuries but we had the Inquisition, Protestants not liking Catholics, the second World War (and the first in Belgium) etc. And don’t forget that Eduard Douwes Dekker wrote one of the most famous Dutch books Max Havelaar using the pseudonym Multatuli because he was afraid that his book would have a negative impact on his career. Jcb’s claims are based on nothing. Natuur12 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- ('Based on nothing' may be quite far from the truth, I have spent 10 years in university studying Theology.) Which of the temporary problems you name would have been ongoing in 1906? None of them I guess? en:Low Countries has been a save place most of the time. E.g. in the 16th century, most of the European Bible translations have been made in cities like Antwerpen, because in several other European countries you would be killed for translating the Bible. And one thing that may have been misunderstood: with 'Dutch' I meant 'in the Dutch language', not 'from the Netherlands'. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know that you studied theology, you have told me that in the past though it must be years ago by now. My point merely was that your original statement is not true. Your view on Dutch and Belgian history is not as how historians see it but that’s a debate we will have to safe for another time. Natuur12 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- ('Based on nothing' may be quite far from the truth, I have spent 10 years in university studying Theology.) Which of the temporary problems you name would have been ongoing in 1906? None of them I guess? en:Low Countries has been a save place most of the time. E.g. in the 16th century, most of the European Bible translations have been made in cities like Antwerpen, because in several other European countries you would be killed for translating the Bible. And one thing that may have been misunderstood: with 'Dutch' I meant 'in the Dutch language', not 'from the Netherlands'. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- This cartoon is likely from Belgium. Not the Netherlands. Which one is more likely? That a Dutch cartoonist created a cartoon about the Archbishop of Mechelen or that a Belgian cartoonist created an cartoon about the Archbishop of Mechelen? I am not sure why Jcb claims that The Netherlands and Belgium have been safe countries for at least the past 5 centuries but we had the Inquisition, Protestants not liking Catholics, the second World War (and the first in Belgium) etc. And don’t forget that Eduard Douwes Dekker wrote one of the most famous Dutch books Max Havelaar using the pseudonym Multatuli because he was afraid that his book would have a negative impact on his career. Jcb’s claims are based on nothing. Natuur12 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Jim, your rule of thumb is not Commons policy. If the artist is unknown then this drawing is public domain as per current policies. If you wish to change the policies then that's something to make a proposal for. By the way, I make no presumptions about whether where volunteers happen to reside can indicate their understanding of that country's IP law or that of other countries. I find it better to judge that by their comments and actions on-wiki. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Clear keeper. No author = PD-EU-anon. Maybe it was published naming the author, given the nature of the cartoon and the possible (likey) repercussion I tend towards anonymous publication. Safe is relative. You might not get burned at the stake, but poking fun at a Catholic official wouldn't get you many friends either. Still a troublesome topic, see the 1990 problem getting an abortion law ratified in Belgium. I don't think it would have been better ~ 100 years ago. No judgement, just observation.--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- That we do not 'know', from the information that we have, who the author was does not mean the work was either anonymous or pseudonymous. It simply means that we don't 'know'... the lack of knowledge (an unknown author) is not evidence, especially when we don't know any publication details. A public claim of authorship even decades after the original publication means that 70 years pma applies, and we should assume that it does unless there is actual evidence to indicate otherwise. Both {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-anon-70-EU}} make the same point... that we really should have some evidence of actual anonymity. Reventtalk 23:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- All anon pics could be argued the same way. Doesn't say who made it, can't keep it. True, we don't know. I didn't say that we do, I am using my sherlockian hat and pipe and deduct from what we have and what I (think I) know. That's all the evidence one can come up with from afar.
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Hedwig in Washington: I think we should make a point out of recognizing the difference between 'unknown' and 'anonymous'... being anonymous was a deliberate choice by the author, and being unknown often just means we've obtained the work from some crap 3rd party source that did not attribute it. To call a work truly 'anonymous' means that you have actual evidence that the author made that choice. Reventtalk 00:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- (specifically, that the original publication was either 'unsigned' or specifically attributed to 'anonymous') A cropped version from a third party, with no attribution, is not 'anonymous', it is 'unknown', and different laws apply. Reventtalk 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- No objection. We often use those term inaccurately. In this case I think anonymous actually is more likely, see my reasoning above, which can be totally wrong. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- All anon pics could be argued the same way. Doesn't say who made it, can't keep it. True, we don't know. I didn't say that we do, I am using my sherlockian hat and pipe and deduct from what we have and what I (think I) know. That's all the evidence one can come up with from afar.
- That we do not 'know', from the information that we have, who the author was does not mean the work was either anonymous or pseudonymous. It simply means that we don't 'know'... the lack of knowledge (an unknown author) is not evidence, especially when we don't know any publication details. A public claim of authorship even decades after the original publication means that 70 years pma applies, and we should assume that it does unless there is actual evidence to indicate otherwise. Both {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-anon-70-EU}} make the same point... that we really should have some evidence of actual anonymity. Reventtalk 23:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Clear keeper. No author = PD-EU-anon. Maybe it was published naming the author, given the nature of the cartoon and the possible (likey) repercussion I tend towards anonymous publication. Safe is relative. You might not get burned at the stake, but poking fun at a Catholic official wouldn't get you many friends either. Still a troublesome topic, see the 1990 problem getting an abortion law ratified in Belgium. I don't think it would have been better ~ 100 years ago. No judgement, just observation.--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
.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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![147 File:Moscow ticket "Troyka" +.jpg](#File:Moscow_ticket_"Troyka"_+.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![166 File:Nelson Farias "El Prince".jpg](#File:Nelson_Farias_"El_Prince".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.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}
_(15561659860).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15746509615).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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Kerkhervormer_Rijksmuseum_SK-A-2561.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2016-10-17T12:29:00.000Z-File:Adeel_Malik.jpg){kind=link}
-2016-10-17T12:31:00.000Z-File:Long_Ruồi.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![20:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/10/17#c-Dogad75-2016-10-17T20:43:00.000Z-File:Moscow_ticket_"Troyka"_+.jpg){kind=link}
![22:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/10/17#c-INeverCry-2016-10-23T22:31:00.000Z-File:Moscow_ticket_"Troyka"_+.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![01:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/10/17#c-INeverCry-2016-10-17T01:27:00.000Z-File:Nelson_Farias_"El_Prince".jpg){kind=link}
![22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/10/17#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-10-23T22:54:00.000Z-File:Nelson_Farias_"El_Prince".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: as per previously closure. --Yann (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since). Given that this image is an in-air shot it has to be taken by military personal and as such PD-gov is likely. I also found mirrored versions of the image online. This one cites NARA. Basvb (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not only the US army was flying during second world war. If the source turns out to be indeed NARA, it's fine. Jcb (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: US 82nd Airborne was the only 82nd anything participating @ OP Market Garden. Highly unlikely NOT to be PD-gov. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No indication that this is indeed an official US government work. If it isn't the license is not valid Jcb (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Emblems supplied by veterans should be sufficient, especially as we know that older versions of unit insignia are not retained on DoD sites in any managed way. Anyone that wishes to challenge the good faith upload should consider contacting https://www.facebook.com/john.passanisi.10 and asking about it. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Unit insignia are works of US military, and thus PD. Derivative works of those would usually be PD, unless they are significantly different, which I don't think is the case here. Unless we have grounds to suspect this is a fake, I think this should AGF as a PD US mil insignia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep See http://www.camppagekorea.com/75hawk1968/imagepages/image1.html Reventtalk 21:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The emblem at that page is totally different from the one in the disputed file?!? - Jcb (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's 'totally different', at all. It's not identical, but shows that the design itself was actually the DUI of the particular military unit. Differences that are due to the 'method of reproduction', and not due to 'human creativity', are not protected under US law... there is case law that supports this. The differences appear (to me) to simply be a matter of rendering the same design in a different media... I don't see changes in the design 'itself'. Reventtalk
- See L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1976) - the court found that the reproduction must contain "an original contribution not present in the underlying work of art." Reventtalk 22:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- They may be based on the same description, but are different depictions of that description. The differences are obvious enough. One is not a 'reproduction' of the other, the designs are significantly different. Jcb (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Official Distinctive Unit Insignia (DUI) for the 5TH ARTILLERY REGIMENT can be found at http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=18039&CategoryId=10296&grp=2&menu=Uniformed%20Services&from=search . The image presented is that DUI which would appear on a soldier's uniform. StephenTS42 (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- The emblem at that page is different from the one in the disputed file. Jcb (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- To Jcb: The file differs since an exact duplicate was not available at the time it was uploaded. The grounds for requesting deletion is for 'no indication the image is indeed an official US government work' which has since been amply provided. The image is of an authorized insignia by the US Army to be worn on a uniform of any soldier assigned to that unit then or at any time it becomes activated. The US government does not manufacture such insignia. Such is manufactured by authorized contractors. FYI StephenTS42 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but the difference is so big, that a third party authorship may be involved. What if we just upload one of the images as provided in this DR of it? Then we would be sure we have an official version online. Jcb (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jcb: It's a matter, really, of how the US military 'works'. The design would have been created by one of the members of the unit ('officially', as a government work), submitted to TIOH, and then approved. The Army would then have ordered some number of thousands of copies from a manufacturer, who would follow the submitted design with only the most minimal changes needed for the 'reproduction method', as any significant change to the design would fail to fulfill the contract, and the badges would then have been issued to servicemembers assigned to the unit. Such minor changes are not themselves copyrightable under US law, even if the 'same' change would be if made as an artistic choice, since would not be due to human creativity, but instead due to the mechanical limitations of the reproduction method. Unless we have some reason to think that this image is not of a 'genuine' DUI badge, but instead of some replica that was deliberately made to be distinct, there is no reason to delete it. There appears to be no reason to believe that is the case. Reventtalk 01:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but the difference is so big, that a third party authorship may be involved. What if we just upload one of the images as provided in this DR of it? Then we would be sure we have an official version online. Jcb (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- To Jcb: The file differs since an exact duplicate was not available at the time it was uploaded. The grounds for requesting deletion is for 'no indication the image is indeed an official US government work' which has since been amply provided. The image is of an authorized insignia by the US Army to be worn on a uniform of any soldier assigned to that unit then or at any time it becomes activated. The US government does not manufacture such insignia. Such is manufactured by authorized contractors. FYI StephenTS42 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
