Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2017/09/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive September 12th, 2017
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPS and OOS. E4024 (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

[1] The uploader claims the image is his "own work" but clarifies in the description that the image was scanned from a Korean government textbook. I have no idea if the Korean-language description includes the same admission here, or whether Commons is allowed host scanned images from Korean school textbooks in general, but the name of the book not being specified and the false claim that it is the uploader's "own work" makes me think not. Hijiri88 (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I came her because I followed the instructions of the tool exactly and was still told that "you failed to create the subpage". Did I create the subpage automatically by clicking the link just now...? Hijiri88 (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Quick deleted, obvious copyvio. (PS. Korean textbook is not government-issued.). — regards, Revi 10:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File is copyright. Uploader does not have copyright holder's permission to upload to wikipedia Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

PETA now accepts the copyright of this image is with David Slater and dropped the lawsuit. “As a part of the arrangement, Slater has agreed to donate 25 percent of any future revenue derived from using or selling the monkey selfies to charities that protect the habitat of Naruto and other crested macaques in Indonesia.” (https://www.peta.org/blog/settlement-reached-monkey-selfie-case-broke-new-ground-animal-rights/) Wikimedia is now hurting the case more than helping it. Hongaar (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Quite specifically, the blog posts says nothing about copyright of the selfie. The U.S. copyright office's view that this is public domain is unchanged and all reports about the court case and settlement talk about having a share of revenue from sales, and say nothing new about copyright itself. -- (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. We have court decision, that the photo is in public domain, and it needs another court decision to change that. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Not this again. Already discussed to death. Tm (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Aleredy discusses, see related DR' such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copied from http://premyer.az/xeberler/xfutbol/1711-mahir-medetov-qarabaga-qelebe-qazandirdi.html Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unless the images of Patty Heart, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon are free, I don't see how this can be free under COM:Derivative works. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am old and this is my first time doing this, so bear with me. The Nixon/Ford photo was on a series of famous impeachment political posters of the day and was recognizable to a lot of people; these were used again during the Carter/Ford campaign under the slogan "Lest We Forget"...if it is copyrighted it was never enforced; the photo was used thousands of times. The photo of Patty Hearst was of course taken by the Symbionese Liberation Army--the photographer Angela Atwood was nastily fried in the ensuing shoot-out and subsequent fire... I don't think the copyright extends beyond the kidnappers' deaths, does it? PumpkinButter (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Exif suggests that this is a grab from Facebook, as also the resolution. This is also not the original image but a crop of a modified version of it. Other versions are here, here and other places (the second image post dates the upload here) —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Many of Pastorflex's file uploads on the English Wikipedia are likely copyvios and not taken by the user. There is no exif data on this file, for instance. Killiondude (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation of art.

Robin Mask, Characters of Kinnikuman
Artist : Yudetamago
Note Categorizing (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jakobsvoice (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope : unused personal images. + Unlikely to be own works (small/middle sizes without EXIFs), comes from Facebook as per "FBMD"

Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal image / unknown person : out of scope Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

These are PDF documents, predominantly text. Generally questionable copyright status and outside the project scope.

Guanaco (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal image includes unattributed artwork. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Appears to depict artist and artwork, but there is no COM:OTRS permission from artist. Also photo is very small, suggesting its not own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FBMD in metadata shows this was in and out of Facebook before upload here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

FBMD in metadata shows that prior to this upload, this file was in and out of Facebook, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Dubious claim of own work, appears to be a book. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

YouTube spam. Personal image containing no educational value. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Seems to be identical to this Flickr photo, which is licensed CC BY-NC 2.0 and is therefore ineligible for Wikimedia Commons Ham II (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Now Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) on flickr --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Third party album coverart, Not own work as claimed, equivalent at English Wikipedia is non-free w:File:Millencolin - The Melancholy Connection cover.jpg sourced to Amazon. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete and block; obvious {{copyvio}} by copyvio-only uploader. LX (talk, contribs) 13:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unlikely own work, small resolution and EXIF data indicates possible grabbed from Facebook.

NinjaStrikers «» 17:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unlikely to be own work : small / middle size without EXIFs. Comes from facebook as per "FBMD"

NinjaStrikers «» 13:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by KyaWwinMyint (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unlikely to be own work : small / middle size without EXIFs. Comes from facebook as per "FBMD"

NinjaStrikers «» 05:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is the sort of behavior that makes me wonder about people. This image is from Wikimedia Commons, see File:Michel Bussi 09608.JPG, larger, older & properly sourced. However uploader decided to help themselves to this image, claim it as own work, and reupload it to the same place it came from. See metadata for confirmation of this shaggy file story. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:PRP Nomination for small size, low quality image with no useful metadata from an uploader with little credibility for 'own work'. No useful metadata, small file size. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The metadata contains copyright information: "Copyright holder: 2009 Kat Hennessey Photography." This does not appear to be the uploader, need permission. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Celebrity photo without metadata; on this website it is attributed to Getty Images. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Photo of the uploader, has the watermark of a professional photographer; needs permission to license and distribute the photo. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Advertising for a website. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 10:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Blurry self-made picture, likely plain exhibitionism (COM:PORN), hence out of scope (compare file:Anal 2.jpg) Yikrazuul (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete - As per nom,
  • AND ALSO, A person jamming something into his asshole is not educational.
  • No benefit except for people who enjoy jamming things up their own asshole, and presumably, they already know how do do that, so they would not need a picture to educate them on how do do it.
  • Very blurry photo.
  • People who are really into pictures of people who enjoy jamming things up their assholes should get together and form www.jamming_things_up_asshole_apedia.com--Hold and wave (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request to closing admin -- I am very disturbed by the comment pattern of this contributor. Many of this contributor's comments are identical to the above "as per nom", as in these examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The deletion discussions are not the venue for votes. Contributors have an obligation to give reason(s) for the deletion, or keep opinions they offer. For this reason I suggest the closing admin discount this contributor's votes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, on July 27th User:Hold and wave made what I consider improper substantive edits to a comment they left on July 23rd -- without advising readers. I left a message on User talk:Hold and wave explaining to H&W what is wrong with this misleading practice. H&W deleted that comment without replying. As I explained below, since anal sex play can be a safe sex practice, images showing the practice have a serious educational value. Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Blurry photo. I will vote for deletion if photos illustrating same subject in proper focus on Commons can be pointed out. Infrogmation (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In a world where sexually transmitted diseases cause millions of avoidable deaths, and millions of babies and mothers die at birth, or shortly thereafter, due to a lack of sex education, the commons should have a large and broad collection of images of all aspects of human sexuality.

    We need, for instances, images of expectant mothers, of all stages of pregnancy. We need them of expectant mothers of all sizes, shapes, ages, health and ethnic group. We need images of the delivery of babies, and afterwards.

    We need before and after photos showing the changes from puberty.

    And we need photos showing sexual practices. We should have freely distributable images of every act in the Kama Sutra, and every act in Alex Comfort's "Joy of Sex". And of every act covered in serious journals. Sex education intended to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted requires images of sexual practices.

    User:Yikrazuul has suggested, in other nominations, that images should be deleted because they suggest the uploader's intent was voyeuristic or exhibitionist. Personally, I think the uploader's intent is of little relevance, when the image is one that helps complete our broad collection of images related to human sexuality. Note this comment is a duplicate of comment from an identical nomination Yikrazuul made.

    In answer to Hold and waves assertions that individuals do not need to be told how to use anal sex toys -- actually, from what I have read, there are ways to make anal sex play a safe sex technique, while careless anal sex play can be just as dangerous as coitus without a condom. Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Under Category:Flowers we have on the order of 30,000 images. While images related to the sexual reproduction of flowering plants are important, I think images related to human sexual reproduction are even more important. Geo Swan (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: While blurry, is educationally distinct from other photos in Category:Sexual penetrative use of dildos. – Adrignola talk 22:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Anal2.jpg

 Delete Renomination: Bad quality. Same User has uploaded ==> Anal3.jpg That photo shows the same action in better quality. Gegensystem (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the infos above. But my renomination is explictely another reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegensystem (talk • contribs)
OK, don't keep us in suspense. What is this reason?

Please don't tell me that it is based on your misconception that you should nominate in-scope images for deletion because, in your personal opinion, a related image is superior. As I have noted in other discussions you have participated in, we have over 30,000 images of the sexual organs of plants. We don't generally delete in-scope images because some contributor thinks newer images are superior to existing images. Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept - speedy close since the nomination is for exactly the same reason as the previous one which was kept less than a week ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Anal2.jpg

Poor quality image with no educational value. Better images of the same act exist. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination claims "no educational value". I request nominator address the counter-argument that this image is of educational value in a discussion of safe sex. This nomination claims "Better images of the same act exist" -- but does not actually list any. This nomination concerns me as it is very similar to the penultimate nomination -- of just five weeks ago -- with no apparent attempt made to read the previous discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep nothing has changed from other nominations, this is an educational image and some people just nominate any sexual image for deletion. If the image is of low quality, they should be placed in Category:Images of low quality rather than deleted. Beta M (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept - there are no other images of males using dildos in the category, and to say "better ones exist" without actually providing any such links. As before, this is an awful awful awful photo but we really have nothing better. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:Anal2.jpg 4

I believe COM:NOT#Commons is not your personal free web host and COM:PORN are what are required here. This is not used on any Wikimedia project, and it most certainly does not have any educational value. The uploader Xuri (talk · contribs) has only ever contributed photographs of himself inserting a sexual toy into himself, which is most definitely a case of COM:PORN. Just because it's freely licensed and there are no other photographs does not mean this image (and its brethren) need to be retained. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am personally requesting that User:mattbuck recuse himself from this debate, and the other debates I started on similar files, as he has closed every single one of them and none of those closures are in any way appropriate, in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't close it, but you will not stop me participating in the debate.  Keep per my previous closure. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Is there a reason why this nomination has not addressed the keep arguments expressed in earlier discussions? Geo Swan (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the nomination states the image "certainly" has no educational value. Alternate techniques of sexual expression are of educational scope in a world with too much sexually transmitted disease and too many unwanted pregnancies. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You use that on all of these deletion debates (including the photograph of the man using the zucchini). Why can we not see this as a low quality image that has no educational value? There is nothing concerning STIs and unwanted pregnancies that is being taught by this photo. It is a poor quality photo of a man with a dildo in his anus, who has uploaded 3 similar photographs and then never contributed to the Wikimedia projects again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It really helps keep the project working smoothly if we all try our best to respect the opinions of other contributors. Sprinkling your comments with "certainly", or "obviously", or other superlatives is not a substitute for advancing coherent arguments. WRT to whether this image is currently being used to educate readers about safe ways to use dildos as a safe sex technique -- are you disputing that this image could be used to illustrate techniques to use -- or avoid? That would put this image, and other similar images, in scope.

        That I have used similar arguments in other discussions is no excuse for failing to address those arguments here -- particularly if you, personally, never addressed them before. Geo Swan (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • I can respect that you have an opinion but I personally don't agree with it. The fact is this image is not used at all. It is not on any Wikimedia project other than the commons. In my opinion, it does not even have a remote use on any of the projects. I am fairly certain that there are plenty of other photographs of people using dildos, men or women, on the commons that serve a better purpose. The series of photos by Xiri do not fill that purpose, as it appears that he has only hosted these here and done nothing else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          No, if you would actually read my closures, you will see that the reason I closed as keep is because we don't have "plenty of other photographs of people using dildos, men or women, on commons that serve a better purpose". That vegetable one you're trying to get deleted? That is literally our best photo of male anal toy use, and these are our best photos of male butt plug use. As I said when closing, if we had anything better I would gladly delete them, BUT WE DON'T. THAT is why I want to keep these anal* images - not because I think they're good, I don't, I think they're horrible, but THEY ARE THE BEST WE HAVE, AND UNTIL THEY STOP BEING THE BEST WE HAVE, WE NEED TO KEEP THESE. Why is that so hard for you to understand? -mattbuck (Talk) 06:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Ryulong asserts we already have "plenty" of images that could illustrate the use of dildoes as a safe sex technique. I counted one day, about a year ago. We had, at that time, over thirty thousand images showing the sexual organs of flowering plants. I suggested there, and I repeat here, that human sexuality is more important topic than vegetable sexuality. If I recall correctly the only substantive counter-argument was that there were many species of flowering plants, but only one species of human. However, humans show an amazing range in how they express their sexuality -- while individual species of plants stick to just one or two techniques.

            I have asked those who use the "we already have plenty" argument to be specific as where they would draw the line between just enough images, and two many images. No one who advances the "we already have plenty" argument seems interested in answering this question. But the impression I have been left with has been that the answer would always be "a lot fewer than we have now". Frankly many of the contributors who routinely voice "delete" in discussions of sexuality related images have satisfied me that they really don't have a good idea of how sparsely and unevenly covered this broad topic is. Many of those who voice "delete" opinions make pretty clear that they find images related to human sexuality personally distasteful, so they won't, haven't, actually taken a close look at the related images, prior to stating we already have "plenty" of images.

            The very first discussion I remember weighing in on showed four or five images, snapped in succession, that illustrated stages of an ordinary penis going from flaccid to engorged and erect. The nomination claimed we already had "plenty" of images of penises. I had no real idea how many images we had. So I looked. We had dozens of images -- ie, less than one hundred. It won't surprise some reader that I didn't find any other images showing the stages of erection.

            I am not aware of any other topic or group of related topics where anyone would argue for deletion simply based on their being a large number of exising images. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            • Perhaps it is because there is an inherent difference between flowers and a human male inserting a foreign object into his rectum and it is perhaps that this particular image, made by the subject and uploader, does not quite fit within the standards this project has set forth when it comes to photographs of human sexuality, rather than the "sexuality" of plants or the sexuality of non-human animals. This would not be an issue if this photograph were not of such poor quality, because then I could presume that it has some sort of inherent educational usage. We needn't keep this user's photographs, when all of the other photographs (save the 3 others that are also at DR) he has taken of himself using a dildo on himself have since been removed from the Commons. It is outside of the scope of the project. The Commons should not be a webhost for shoddy home-made pornographic images that are in use nowhere except for when you have personally taken them and put them on another project. And if anything, there is now nothing functionally different between these photos and File:Sodomie.jpg which closed as "keep" several months ago, and that is of a much higher quality than this, as are several photographs of females using dildos for anal insertion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some who voice "delete" opinions claim that images uploaded by those with an exhibitionistic intent should always be deleted. Even a stopped clock is correct, twice a day. I don't think an uploader's exhibitionistic intent should cause us to delete images that have a legitimate, in scope, educational value. I won't repeat the arguments I previously made that this image is in scope and of potential educational value. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment - censorship raid. "You may wish to restate your arguments as to why the Commons should no longer host these exhibitionist photographs." Ryulong. If somebody wants to delete it: have good arguments. --Saibo (Δ) 19:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a censorship raid. This is a low quality photo that has no possible educational use. And I am merely notifying a user who has had opinions on these photos that I have relisted them for deletion, when he originally proposed them. There is nothing wrong about that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The keep rationale is entirely unconvincing. There is no educational value in keeping these images. We don't keep out of scope, low quality images, just because it the best we have. None of the other Wikimedia projects will ever use this image. Therefore, it is out of the commons scope, and should be deleted. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anal 3.jpg russavia (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 10:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 10:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 10:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

poor technical quality compared to other photos in this category, a penis is barely visible and blurred Pibwl (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per both comments. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 10:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by LX as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Just another non-free Google search result. See Commons:Image casebook#Internet images.
Not a clear case. Sanandros (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete, clear {{copyvio}} with completely made-up licensing claims. The metadata clearly identifies this as a non-free AP photo by Chris Pizzello, as does the caption at http://varietylatino.com/2016/gente/noticias/maluma-dice-que-trabajar-con-ricky-martin-es-increible-vente-pa-ca-274468/, for example. The uploader even admits it's just been grabbed via Google. What's unclear? LX (talk, contribs) 22:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Ok now it's a clear case. --Sanandros (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Is this in-scope? Ubcule (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Probable derivative copyvio due to images used? Ubcule (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No idea who this is, and no description given, which renders it out of scope. Ubcule (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has metadata with gps which should by no means be accessible to anyone in the public. This is a plant threatened by illegal collection. It needs to be urgently and permanently deleted please. S Molteno (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by S Molteno as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: It has metadata with gps which should by no means be accessible to anyone in the public. This is a plant threatened by illegal collection. It needs to be urgently and permanently deleted please.. This is non-copyright restriction. We can re-upload a new version with less EXIF data and after that delete the first version. Taivo (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my personal curiosity, what makes this species that special? Being threatened by extinction? --E4024 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being threatened by extinction through illegal collection. Other kind of extinctions do not need coordinates hiding. Taivo (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, the first version. Taivo (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has metadata with gps which should by no means be accessible to anyone in the public. This is a plant threatened by illegal collection. It needs to be urgently and permanently deleted please. S Molteno (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by S Molteno as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: It has metadata with gps which should by no means be accessible to anyone in the public. This is a plant threatened by illegal collection. It needs to be urgently and permanently deleted please. This is non-copyright restriction. We can re-upload a new version with less EXIF data and after that delete the first version. Taivo (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File replaced with new version without data. Please could you delete the original (ditto Tulista kingiana Moerasrivier after fire 2.jpg). Thanks. S Molteno (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, the first version. Taivo (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Since being the owner of this pic, I found this picture with low quality. So I would like to have this picture deleted from this site. Satyamfxr (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

People with the orange "No photo, please!"-Lenyard are pictured. Ptolusque (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploade nominated the photo for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

People with the organge "No photo, please!"-Lenyard are pictured. Ptolusque (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader nominated the photo for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

People with the organge "No photo, please!"-Lenyard are pictured. Ptolusque (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader nominated the photo for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

People with the organge "No photo, please!"-Lenyard are pictured. (centre right) Ptolusque (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader nominated the photo for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

People with the organge "No photo, please!"-Lenyard are pictured. (left) Ptolusque (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader nominated the photo for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

People with the organge "No photo, please!"-Lenyard are pictured. (left) Ptolusque (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader nominated the photo for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Codename Lisa as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Clearly a screenshot of a computer program; unlike to have been developed by the uploader. At least, the Windows 10 taskbar is definitely non-free.
"Unlikely" is not a clear case for speedy. Sanandros (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: You said '"Unlikely" is not a clear case for speedy.' Oh, on the contrary, it is: COM:PCP says "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." In addition, it is the duty of the uploader to provide source that proves the copyright status of the image beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so is treated with speedy deletion criterion F5. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Implemented an alternative to deletion. (It is amazing what a computer with a large screen in combination with a comfortable chair can do.) The app in the shot was identified as NetBeans which is released under a free license. Windows 10 is not free but I cropped out that portion. Then I analyzed the source code, which is definitely copyright-protected. Since nothing meaningful is seen, the inclusion of the code is de minimis.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Originally by Getty Images, no evidence of permission for Commons to use. 108.161.114.81 00:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Tabercil: Copyright violation: Originally from Getty

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by ITGuru (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Historical advertisement. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by ITGuru (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000475503677/3981f9b28a5d9084a50e0012f3fa98b6_400x400.png.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Harrywood vicky kadian (talk · contribs)

[edit]

There is no evidence that this person is notable. Also, while the first two might be selfies, the third is not and therefore the claim of "own work" is incorrect.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9   14:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP in Ukraine Dogad75 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Probable derivative copyvio Ubcule (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Jcb: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file -

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope Ubcule (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Jcb: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file -

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative copyvio Ubcule (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Jcb: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file -

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out-of-scope bulk importation Ubcule (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Jcb: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file -

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Bad alignment, pixelated; replaced by File:2,4-Dinitrotoluol.svg and File:2,4-Dinitrotoluene acsv.svg. Leyo 14:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per discussion. Ed (Edgar181) 15:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Non trival third party logo, felt to above threshold of originality, the equivalent at English Wikipedia was non-free w:File:Proximus Spirou logo.png ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Just another non-free image from en-wiki Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The metadata contains copyright information ('"Sarah Monrose") who is apparently not the uploader; need permission or clarification of copyright status. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is a third party logo, the equivalent at English Wikipedia was under a non-free license w:File:WikiShia_logo.png ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Réponse:

Ce fichier est gratuit et n'est pas sous le droit d'auteur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamoosavi (talk • contribs)


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reappeared after recent deletion. E4024 (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: @E4024: you can tag recreations for speedy deletion. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

There is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is clearly fim poster art, Equivalent at English Wikipedia is non-free. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This appears to be a third party logo, containing non-trivial elements, how is this own work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Third party logo, Thrshold of originality concern in relation to the logo element top right. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This appears to have a Noncommercial CC license, the file located both here and here, this license is not compatible with Commons. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is the uploader's last remaining contribution, in my opinion out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Userpage image of a non-user. E4024 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UPF and OOS. E4024 (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This pic is her IMDb image. E4024 (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there...the photographer CraigDamon.com will be submitting permission to use this photo to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devinmills (talk • contribs)


Deleted: When and if the license is received, this can be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

i do not think this is "de minimis". if i understood correctly, this would be de minimis case #7:

Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless.
- Commons:De minimis

the filename says "Kermit meeting Michelle Obama (some random numbers here).jpg", so removing kermit the frog would make this file useless, since why would the filename said "Kermit meeting Michelle Obama" when kermit is edited out? TemTem (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per COM:DM. This picture shows a story about Kermit the Frog rather than being a DW of the frog. Jcb (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i think you meant delete, not keep :) TemTem (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Kermit is the central reason for this image -- there is no way in the world he is DM. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Description explains that this image is copyrighter by this person's employer. No indication of open license. Symac (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Userpage image of a user dedicated to their own user pages, more than 90 per cent of the time and edits. E4024 (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Musician (?) with no article anywhere. E4024 (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by DMacks as no permission (No permission since) Elisfkc (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Kermit makes up part of the image, so it should be De minimis if anything. Copyright holder (Disney/Muppet Studios) knew that any images would be released as Public Domain from the event, and they agreed to the event. They did not express their copyright right, like they did for the 2016 Kids' State Dinner: Jungle Book Performance, so they are agreeing to the DoD's licensing policy. Elisfkc (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Kermit is the objectionable component (one cannot generally take a picture of him and declare the result to be free, see Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets for close precedent). License release cannot be implicit, or assumed by non-explicit assertion, licenses of an image and the object being imaged are independent, with one a derivative work of the other. Given the filename and context, Kermit is a substantial and key part of the scene. I have no objection to cropping out Kermit if the remainder of the image has COM:EDUSE. But what we're left with would be floating heads of Gen. Dempsey and Michelle Obama. DMacks (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per COM:DM. --Jcb (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

i do not think this is "de minimis". if i understood correctly, this would be de minimis case #7:

Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless.
- Commons:De minimis

the filename says "General Dempsey, Kermit the Frog, and Michelle Obama (some random numbers here).jpg", so removing kermit the frog would make this file useless, since why would the filename said "General Dempsey, Kermit the Frog, and Michelle Obama " when kermit is edited out? also, general dempsey and michelle obama are both looking at kermit, so if kermit is edited out, what thing or who are they looking at? TemTem (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per COM:DM. This picture shows a story about Kermit the Frog rather than being a DW of the frog. Jcb (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Kermit is major element of this image -- he cannot possibly be DM. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:General Dempsey, Kermit the Frog, and Michelle Obama (13115214803).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kermit meeting Michelle Obama (13115348623).jpg TemTem (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per above mentioned DRs. Jcb (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Kermit is a major element in this image -- the only reason it was taken. He cannot possibly to DM. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

work would seem to be within copyright. Post 1923, and the author died in 1993. No evidence available whether copyright or not as lead pages are missing. Does not seem to be a work of the American government.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is published in UK, following being published in the US. No indication of what was showing in the New Yorker. This UK published edition has no evidence of a copyright statement, though that is not required for UK publications, and would not disqualify US copyright.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Missing permission : © Benjamin Lévy / Agence Aléo Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal album file, vacations on the mountain. Not used and OoS. E4024 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is a screenshot from an episode of a copyrighted television series, A Nero Wolfe Mystery. WFinch (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this is your own photograph from the set, then? If so, I apologize and withdraw the deletion request. The episode is identified incorrently, though; it's "Prisoner's Base", in which Dina Barrington played Daphne. This appears to be the image located at 25:01 on the A&E DVD. — WFinch (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes indeed I do. But back to my original question: Is this your own photograph from the set? Or is the image derived from the A&E DVD? — WFinch (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well...Mr. Wolf, in order for me to have taken that poor quality photo, I'd have to be physically on a Canadian set, standing just to the left of Andris Matiss with gaffer set lighting, because a flash would be out of the question with an action shot. (could explain the slight angle difference, and poor quality). Also, it would have to be an 'out take' not finally commissioned by Jaffe/Braunstein Films, or Susan Murdoch, because all the good shots would eventually end up out of my hands. That's all you'll hear from this sap. Be sure and fill in Cramer when you've come to your conclusion.→ Pocketthis (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's enough to satisfy me, although a simple declarative statement would be more satisfactory to the administrator who concludes whether the file should be kept. I know of many candid shots from the show, but no one has uploaded any to the Commons before. — WFinch (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unsatisfactory explanation. Outakes are copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded by Macie as her only contribution. Possibly her father, boy friend or brother in hospital. OoS. E4024 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (msg) 07:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal file. Must be another selfie to add to our collection of selfies. Only upload by the uploader. E4024 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Krichevsky (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Seems to be collection of promo photos. Attributed to different authors in EXIF or could be found with Google Images, like http://www.gazprom-neft.com/upload/medialibrary/ff2/18.jpg.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Depicted person was born in 1915, so the photo is made probably on 1950s. Own work is unlikely. Real photographer and publication data are needed to determine copyright status. Taivo (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Guy Tournier is not in public domain (1960-1970s manuscript). Copyright violation. 90.43.128.130 14:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope Commons is not a social media site ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 14:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope Commons is not a social media site ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 14:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image license does not allow for completely free use. See the terms of use on the source website, which state: Photographs and stories cannot be used in any way (including, without limitation, suggesting an association with or endorsement of any product, service, opinion or cause) that conflicts with the intent and premise of the original source. Dragfyre (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I uploaded it and misunderstood the match of Commons policy to the terms of news.bahai.org. Should be deleted.

Kept: That language is very similar to the language in CC-BY at 2.6/. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Nori Malo-Renault died in 1953. No OTRS. 90.43.128.130 14:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Bluesymamal417 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Official symbols and docuemnts. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: unused personal photo with unclear educational purpose. Wcam (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If this photo cannot be used to any articles or projects, I consider that the uploader must explain the purpose of uploading this photo, or should be deleted. Ping @Zxcv9750. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mrmmasud (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Wife Ka Hatyara (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All pictures are using to defame and shame someone. Four of them have "Husband killer of wife" text in Hindi. Should be deleted.

Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Scan of an old photograph, needs more detailed source info Ytoyoda (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken of an old photo that was mounted on a wall at Hednesford Town Football Club. The source is Danny McGhee and the photo was taken by Danny McGhee himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global Freestyle (talk • contribs) 11:53, September 12, 2017‎ (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting Mr. McGhee took a photograph of himself while playing in a game, which I find hard to believe. And if that were true, this photograph would require an OTRS email from Danny McGhee. 17:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

EXIF credits Apen'kin Alexander, relation to uploader not explained Ytoyoda (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope Commons is not a social media site ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope Commons is not a selfie repository ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Athirahhanis (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused text diagrams, should be in wiki-markup if needed, out of scope.

P 1 9 9   22:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Athirahhanis (talk · contribs) 3

[edit]

Not own works: obvious screengrabs/DW, or with transmission code in EXIF data.

P 1 9 9   22:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by RaymondOly (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Small images without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Unknown9022 (talk · contribs) 1

[edit]

Unused personal and promotional images, out of scope. The Bath & Body Works images are copyvios: found online using Google Images with dates prior to upload.

P 1 9 9   16:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

A petición del autor Gonzalo P.M.G. (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the author of this photo, an I want to delate it, please. Thanks.
Hola, soy el autor de esta foto y quiero que se borre si es posible. Gracias.--Gonzalo P.M.G. (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nice image. The license is irrevocable and the file is in use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no longer required 87.74.227.81 19:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Pictures shown on this sign are not made by the author of this picture Vuxi (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: That is probably true, but German FOP is very broad. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Joke/personal flag – out of scope. TFerenczy (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Joke/personal "flag" – out of scope TFerenczy (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Rose Adler died in 1959. Copyright violation. 83.204.209.135 20:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Rose Adler died in 1959. Copyright violation. 83.204.209.135 20:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Rose Adler died in 1959. Copyright violation. 83.204.209.135 20:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Danila Trofimov (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal images

Цыгане (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Fzworld (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal images, possible promotion, out of COM:SCOPE

Eurodyne (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Fzworld (talk · contribs)

[edit]

personal images, out of scope

Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Not the real Superman. OoS. E4024 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused image of a single-item uploader. OoS. E4024 (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused poster of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Note, this is not the same PDF as the previously deleted one; all three files with that generic name "Hypothalamus.pdf" deleted so far were different from each other, but all had basically the same issues. "Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images", as in EugeneZelenko's previous nominations, applies to this one as well. The photo of a sleeping woman looks like a stock photo. I suggest that, after deleting this PDF, this file name should be blocked for future uploads, as the name is too generic and seems to attract content that is out of scope / unsuitable for Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Advertisement. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Anddme (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Wikimode33 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope Commons is not a social media site

✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 15:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope, poor quality Batholith (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Giksongeorge (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Images out of scope. Images description has a link to copyrighted website. If owner please confirm the same via OTRS.

✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 15:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope, poor quality Batholith (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope. Ubcule (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possibly out of scope? Ubcule (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Is this image in-scope? Ubcule (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal file Sakhalinio (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused, complicated logo with no apparent notability and a copyright problem. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal image out of COM:SCOPE Eurodyne (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

low quality, possible promotion Eurodyne (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

advertising Цыгане (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ryanmfahy (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal photos

Цыгане (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Apdonda (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal photos

Цыгане (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Цыгане (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ashkan Rafiee (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal images

Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal image Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal image Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal image out of COM:SCOPE Eurodyne (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ashwini parihar (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal images

Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Out of project scope except one. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Achraf syxosrad (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal artwork

Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal image Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little usable EXIF, small.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little usable EXIF, small, came via Facebook.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal image Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Phra.palad suwan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little usable EXIF, small.

  — Jeff G. ツ 00:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope, promotional. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal photo Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little usable EXIF, small.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Musa ahmed (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal photos

Kyrle Daly (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:F2BOOK

[edit]

Facebook/YouTube spam. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little (if any) usable EXIF, small.

  — Jeff G. ツ 01:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

advertising Kyrle Daly (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused personal image Kyrle Daly (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little (if any) usable EXIF, small.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little (if any) usable EXIF, small.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little (if any) usable EXIF, small.

  — Jeff G. ツ 01:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little usable EXIF, small, came via Facebook.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, no EXIF, small.

  — Jeff G. ツ 01:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little (if any) usable EXIF, small.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little (if any) usable EXIF, small.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no me gusta Jose luis moreno alvarez 0821 (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - Photo isn't used on other projects (currently on 1 Wikidata page, but will be removed from there when Listeriabot stops by). Doesn't have any educational purpose. Mbch331 (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see http://www.gazprom-neft.ru/press-center/sibneft-online/archive/2014-january-february/1104514/ Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see http://www.gazprom-neft.ru/press-center/sibneft-online/archive/2013-december-projects/1104483/ Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see http://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2014/april/article189209/ Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal pics collage by DEEP GHAINT. Also include his pic:File:DEEP GHAINT.jpg. E4024 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, see EXIF Маленькая красная тряпочка (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Synonym of Begonia palmata Salix (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: by colleague. --Jcb (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

maybe copyvio - looks like internet wallpaper but I can't get Google Image search to work on it... Цыгане (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Lack of proof of ownership; logo is more suitable under fair use with a Non-free use rationale. CentreLeftRight 23:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: complex logo, no permission. --Wdwd (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

dubious own work Eurodyne (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unused logo, not own work. --Wdwd (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Raphind (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little (if any) usable EXIF, small.

  — Jeff G. ツ 01:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: possible copyvios, per COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Raphind (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

Likely not own works: first one is a photo of existing photo, the other 2 taken from FB as per EXIF data.

P 1 9 9   01:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom and previous section.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File was apparently taken from http://www4.csudh.edu/ucpa/university-photography/index but there is no indication there that the file is in the public domain as indicated by the uploader. ElKevbo (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no permission. --Wdwd (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File was apparently taken from http://www4.csudh.edu/ucpa/university-photography/index but there is no indication there that the file is in the public domain as indicated by the uploader. ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no permission. --Wdwd (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File was apparently taken from http://www4.csudh.edu/ucpa/university-photography/index but there is no indication there that the file is in the public domain as indicated by the uploader. ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no permission. --Wdwd (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little usable EXIF, small, came via Facebook.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Facebook image without permission. --Wdwd (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Google images Rodrigolopes (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE, own work questionable, little (if any) usable EXIF, small.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: file is in use (=in scope), not an obvious copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This doesn't look like it's the LFS Artic at all. Perhaps it's a mislabeled image? Some Gadget Geek (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+Note that file has renamed into proper name.--DangSunM (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

total schief, verwendung kaum denkbar, wohl ungeprüfter botupload Xocolatl (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

schief, so nicht zu gebrauchen Xocolatl (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Tiven2240 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: From Instagram no permission. Out of scope too..
This needs anyway discussion as Instagram is a comunity and the uploader could be the same on Instagram and on Commons. Scope also needs discussion. Sanandros (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unused, from exteral webpage without permission. --Wdwd (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Ubcule as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative copyvio.
Logo looks pretty old could be PD. Sanandros (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanandros: - To be fair, I'd usually type "presumed derivative copyvio", but since our approach to copyrightable labels (COM:PACKAGING) is that they're generally not okay unless an exception is shown, this seemed implicit.
Regardless; yes, it could be PD... or it could equally be a modern pastiche. (Given the number of modern faux-retro companies, I'd have considered the latter more likely). The onus is, of course, on the latter to be proven by the uploader- or whoever wants to put the effort into keeping the image- and not vice versa!
However, since I got curious, I checked anyway and it turns out that the truck is a 1946 model, but the company was founded in 2005, so it looks like I was probably right.
If someone wants to show otherwise, I'm okay with that, but as I said, the presumption is that it's non-free unless proven otherwise, so I think marking it as a copyvio was perfectly reasonable.
Ubcule (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope. Unused personal signature which might be considered as personal data according to Czech law. Deletion also requested by the owner in ticket:2017090810010837. Mates (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by LMLM as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copied from https://www.diariolibre.com/documents/10157/0/400x265/0c0/0d0/none/10904/HQCV/image_content_5369524_20150810164607.jpg
Ours has a higher resolution. Sanandros (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Ours is bigger (750x491 vs 400x265) but both has the same resolution: 96 dpi. It is very easy to get a 750x491 image from a 400x265 one, with the same resolution. Besides 750x491 is not a standard size for an original image and EXIF data shows no evidence of "own work". LMLM (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Ubcule as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative copyvio
Let's first discuss it if it is realy a copyvio. Sanandros (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberries seem to be both above threshold of originality (at least- going by experience here alone- by US standards) and not de minimis. Ubcule (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Ubcule as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative copyvio
Logo looks pretty old. 7 days. Sanandros (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did look into this, and think it's a copyvio, or at least will be virtually impossible to prove otherwise. The (Indian) company is not as old as you think, there's a Wikipedia article for them. -- (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Ubcule as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative copyvio
Likly to be copyrighted but any way 7 days. Sanandros (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Ubcule as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative copyvio
The text could be TOO. Maybe cropping. Sanandros (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was the surrounding content I had in mind, so cropping might work if the text was deemed useful and in-scope, which I still remain to be convinced by. Ubcule (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Ubcule as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative copyvio Sanandros (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Ubcule as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: One of numerous obviously problematic (near-certain derivative copyvio) images by Flickr user "cogdogblog" imported by User:Fæ. There are numerous examples of these- are we not even bothering doing the most cursory checks for Flickrwashed images before their bulk importation?
In the text is written they used his photo. Sanandros (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cogdogblog was a mistake, though many photos are useful. A mass DR would be easier, or the really obvious copyvios could be simply added to Category:Uploads by Fæ needing speedy deletion and they can be speedied after a while to look over them. -- (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: derivative work, no permission. --Wdwd (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copy of http://www.corys.com/sites/default/files/styles/range_collection_image/public/desk_6.png?itok=tn803A5H Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: not the same image, no obvious copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by LX as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Just another non-free Google search result. See Commons:Image casebook#Internet images.
Yea but not clear case so 7 days. Sanandros (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete, obvious {{copyvio}} with completely made-up licensing claims, grabbed from http://www.nirapadnews.com/%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BF-%E0%A6%8F%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F%E0%A6%95-%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B2/. The uploader even admits it's been grabbed via Google. What's there to discuss? LX (talk, contribs) 22:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you grab it from google there exists also a tool to filter out just free pics. And on that website I can't see if it is copyrighted or not.--Sanandros (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaders who provide no other source information than "Google" don't use those filters. And of course it is copyrighted. Every recent original work is automatically protected by copyright upon creation. LX (talk, contribs) 11:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio (src: http://archive.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-04-23/news/148658). --Wdwd (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Gunnex as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio (cropped) via grabbed from internet = http://infocul.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Foto-proposta.jpg (03.2017, exif available)
It may be copyrighted but maybe it's also free. Provide a link with copyright information. Sanandros (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't read a "please" but anyway: taken from (as indicated above) e.g. http://infocul.pt/cultura/carlos-leitao-e-uma-sala-de-estar-com-vista-para-o-alentejo-e-lisboa/ (03.2017) = http://infocul.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Foto-proposta.jpg (exif available) with no copyright disclaimer presuming that the content is copyrighted, per photo credit of https://www.ccb.pt/Default/pt/Programacao/Musica?A=831 or https://www.rtp.pt/antena1/concertos/carlos-leitao-no-ccb_9537 or http://www.museudofado.pt/calendario/detalhes.php?id=573 or https://www.publico.pt/2017/05/30/culturaipsilon/noticia/a-sala-que-se-vai-cantar-o-fado-1771906/amp or http://fmsimoes.blogs.sapo.pt/fadista-carlos-leitao-tem-novo-album-221105# a copyrighted work by "©interslide Paulo Maria". Gunnex (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by KylieTastic as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: published on multiple websites, invalid licence. i.e. https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1165323/meet-the-bodybuilder-who-has-been-using-steroids-for-more-than-30-years-and-says-he-wouldnt-change-a-thing/ (credit to 'facebook')
That's for me not a clear case. Sanandros (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Source of original material unclear, possible derivative copyvio Ubcule (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative copyvio Ubcule (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Do we need a picture of some random toilet? Ubcule (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Sanitation can be pretty interesting and can have educational value. I've never actually seen a toilet with this design before, it looks very 'industrial'. A rename to avoid the jokey filename could be useful. -- (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : one-file-upload, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ?  Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, deleted per COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/cfe6bbfe-9fc2-4075-a2bc-5c501a5f31f5-original.jpeg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.mit.gov.it/sites/default/files/media/notizia/2017-07/SASSARI%20OLBIA%20LOTTO9.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused "Facebook Profile Pic". Hystrix (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://dokumentarikuliah.com/benarkah-ada-ulama-berketurunan-nabi-saw-maulana-asri-yusoff/. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Previously published on Facebook, needs OTRS ticket: https://www.facebook.com/garykagelmacher88/photos/a.111471472311710.9429.111469605645230/1322957097829802/?type=3&theater Ytoyoda (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

From https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Photo-Coverage-LoveMusik-Opening-Night-20070504 Ytoyoda (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Apparent copyright violation. Looks like a commercial photograph. Photo can be found at http://www.kirtas.com/index.php/test/archived-articles which claims a 2015 copyright of Kirtas, Inc. Glrx (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9   16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

New SVG version, with updated (correct) seat distribution has been uploaded, and will replace this. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: file is in use, please specify SVG filename. --Wdwd (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Dbombara (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No permission and possible copyright violation .

Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Only simple logos can be in Comons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Core Technology isn't mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in pl.wiki. Unused logo of non-notable company, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

As renovation project author Edgar Johan Kuusik (see https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_teatrihoone) died in 1974, the photo can be fully used starting from 2045, because in Estonia freedom of panorama is ambigiously restricted to non-commercial use. Märt Põder (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the law is rather unambiguous. No commercial use of the images of public art without the author's permit, period. --85.253.175.144 13:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

As renovation project author Edgar Johan Kuusik (see https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_teatrihoone) died in 1974, the photo can be fully used starting from 2045, because in Estonia freedom of panorama is ambigiously restricted to non-commercial use. Märt Põder (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 04:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Looks pretty old could be PD. Sanandros (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 04:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
It looks pretty old. Maybe PD. Sanandros (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 04:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Not a real contributor. E4024 (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep In use, so keep by default. The WMF encouraged users on Wikipedia to upload selfies to illustrate their user pages during their campaigns to 'recruit' contributors. It is no surprise when new users do precisely that, nor is it against any Commons policies. -- (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Fæ. Ruthven (msg) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation, no permission. Tekstman (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination: © 2017 Radge Media Limited. Ruthven (msg) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Duplicate of File:BSicon ABZmgr.svg. Jc86035 (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 10:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality and unused COM:VULVA photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete nothing special here Dronebogus (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 10:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

"Maxresdefault" filename (YouTube/Google search thumbnails). Professional photo with no EXIF data, also no image information for identification. Unlikely to be own work, delete per COM:PRP. GermanJoe (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is a professional photo of model Genevieve Morton, updated to "speedy delete" as clear copyvio. GermanJoe (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by Y.haruo. Ruthven (msg) 19:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 11:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reasons for deletion request: Identifiable person, possible upload without consent containing nudity/ sexual act-Wombat857 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

identifiable person, nudity/ pornography, unable to determine consent as photo looks like amateur sex photo for personal use. Could be posted without consent malaciously. Wombat857 (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no evidence for missing consent Krd 07:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 11:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 11:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File uploade by Damian Quilici, same name, and not used. The only contribution of this user. E4024 (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination + personal unused photo. Ruthven (msg) 19:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Useless image of unknown man -- no categories, no description, useless file name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Izzet325 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:23 year old men ejaculation.gif

— Racconish ☎ 13:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

, which of these files do you advocate keeping ? — Racconish ☎ 09:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fleshlight gifs. -- (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the 1st and 3rd of the above files ? — Racconish ☎ 13:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@: you have been pinged.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. -- (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination for those two. — Racconish ☎ 13:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: most, kept two per discussion. --Jcb (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Izzet325 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: What is still missing in existing collection of explicit materials?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as for me I would delete the whole, even the 'fleshlight'-ones, as there must be some trademark around the name 'fleshlight'...and if the name is copyrighted, no one should use it in the name of a file on commons ;-) Pippobuono (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pippobuono: Trademark is an insufficient reason for deletion, we have {{Trademarked}} for that. Also it differs from copyright.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Fæ. Ruthven (msg) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Izzet325 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons is not your personal free web host. See here.

D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. File:Male ejaculation with a toy.ogg  Keep as before, illustrative of fleshlight use, good quality for this subject. The related category has just 9 files of which this is the only video.
  2. File:Male ejaculation video.ogg  Keep straightforward masterbation with circumsized penis and ejaculation video, okay quality to illustrate both subjects and the model's own release is perfectly okay.
  3. File:Erkek penis.jpg  Keep illustrative for circumcised penises, there's no particular urgent need to delete this, it's probably one of our better erection photos.
  4. File:Male ejaculation gif.gif  Delete the gif is a bit jerky, though gifs of ejaculation could be useful for educational purposes, I think we have significantly better.
  5. File:Errected human penis with a cock ring.jpg  Keep It turns out this is the only black rubber cock ring in use that we have a close up for. @Izzet325: If you release more of these, it would be good to ensure nothing else is in the background, a simple black or white background work best.
  6. File:Erected human penis in a condom.jpg  Keep nicely framed for educational use to illustrate a penis sheathed in a condom.
  7. File:Male masturbation video.ogg (and its redirect target File:Male masturbation video.ogv)  Keep Clip of probably the most common way to masterbate for men with a circumcised cock, lubed hand moving with a slight twisting motion. The clip is short but precisely illustrative and of likely educational value.
  8. File:A male penis penetration with his toy.jpg  Keep as per the last, recent, DR.
  9. File:A male penis ready to enter this toy.jpg  Keep as per the last, recent, DR.
  10. File:A errected human penis in a condom.jpg  Keep well framed, good focus, clear educational value to illustrate condom use.
  11. File:Errected human penis in a condom.jpg  Keep goes with the previous image, in this one it is clearer that the penis has no foreskin.
  12. File:A male masturbation fleshlight 02.gif  Keep as per the last, recent, DR.
  13. File:A male masturbation fleshlight 01.gif  Keep as per the last, recent, DR.
    • User:Dyolf77 is an admin and I guess they know what vandalism is or not. Would you mind not attacking people? We are all volunteers here. --E4024 (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Their actions by raising this DR puts their status at risk, maybe they think it's worth it. Someone with sysop rights who is keen to keep on re-raising "porn" images in a third DR within a matter of weeks is disrupting the project and they should carefully reconsider why they are here. I am quite happy to call out any user for actions which provably disrupt the project regardless of what "bits" they happen to have. Thanks -- (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination @: Sorry for wasting your valuable volunteer time. By the way your comment stating that "Dyolf77 (talk · contribs) is not here for the good of this project" seems to be false. Regards. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jeff G. and E4024: for your comments and votes.— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 09:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for withdrawing. If you created this DR because the previous DRs were hard to see based on the tools or backlogs you were using, you may want to raise that as an improvement request. -- (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Keep per Fae, minus File:Male ejaculation gif.gif per Fae. ~riley (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Guy Tournier is not in public domain (1960-1970s manuscript). Copyright violation. 90.43.128.130 14:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Jean Malo-Renault died in 1988. No OTRS. 90.43.128.130 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Jean Malo-Renault died in 1988. No OTRS. 90.43.128.130 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mahmud Emon (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.freshwater-science.org/Publications/Newsletter-In-The-Drift/files/25_spotlight_01.jpg.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Copyvio from [7], for instance; photo credited to WildTeam. Ruthven (msg) 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no educational purpose Yoursmile (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Concerned about copyvio as the URL given as source does not clearly indicate a free license (a "free download" and a free license are not the same), and since I cannot backtrace the exact file. I see that the image appears elsewhere such as on this URL. Finally, the filename is absurdly vague and should probably be salted afterwards. I note personally that if this is kept en:Party.png needs to be moved elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I don't know if this is the same file with this file name twice deleted before but certainly it is a private party, personal album pic. No place here. I mean no educational use possible. Better party pics available. E4024 (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

From http://www.usorugby.com/tim-giresse-tout-donner-pour-que-le-bo-puisse-faire-un-resultat/ Ytoyoda (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Very poor quality, cannot be identified, only used on user page, out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Very poor quality, cannot be identified, only used on user page, out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Very poor quality, cannot be identified, only used on user page, out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Very poor quality, cannot be identified, only used on user page, out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has been replaced by another file after corrections were made. Armchair (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has been replaced by another file after corrections were made. Armchair (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has been replaced by another file after corrections were made. Armchair (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has been replaced by another file after corrections were made. Armchair (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has been replaced by another file after corrections were made. Armchair (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has been replaced by another file after corrections were made. Armchair (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

grabbed from the web - used at many plages, e.g. http://build.mk/se-bara-izveduvach-za-ploshtadot-skend/ Albinfo (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

,c,kbhlkckf 190.235.70.38 19:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deleting request is an attempt of vandalism by 190.235.70.38. This page is part of the Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in Peru contest. --Ovruni (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 19:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

sorry, ik heb op de verkeerde knop gedrukt. Pagina moet blijven!


Speedy kept: Mistake DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

gebruikersnaam wijzigen Ajvdw (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion: vandalism. Ruthven (msg) 19:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walibi_Mascotte.jpg?uselang=nl Luuk58 (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Hisagi as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://twitter.com/mo2nekodan/status/761785234475974656
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpJnnVhUMAAaBlS.jpg

On twitter is they don't provide any copyright information. So 7 days. Sanandros (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete This image was uploaded on ja.wikipedia on 2016-08-18 by 中樹 知之.[8] But its original was uploaded on twitter on 2016-08-05 by ぴょん吉@mo2nekodan.[9][10] 中樹 知之 insisted that the image was his own work, but Japanese wikipedians doubt it because his explanation was inconsistent and he is a habitual offender of copyright. --Hisagi (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Hisagi. Ruthven (msg) 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copy of http://www.capingelec.com/fileadmin/_processed_/csm__MG_7353_3835523eca.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This appears to be a publicity photo with no proof of licensing. Nunabas (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Copyvio from [11] (2011). Ruthven (msg) 19:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Com:SCOPE: self-created artwork. Hystrix (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Com:SCOPE: self-created artwork. Hystrix (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

not self made work Thraen (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I cannot find the hostel from ru.wiki. Probably it's non-notable, out of project scope.
Не найду этого пансионата в рувики. Кажется, значимости нет. Taivo (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

error, without interest Cjp24 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: mistake in creation. Ruthven (msg) 19:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no source or author's name - even not on WT where it was transfered from DerFussi 07:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: own assumed. Ruthven (msg) 15:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Third party logo, not necessarily own work as claimed, Threshold of originallity concern about non text element top. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

False license; linked source does not provide free license. PereslavlFoto (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination: Copyright © ООО Издательский дом "Университетская книга" 2011. Ruthven (msg) 15:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: grandfathered old file: own assumed. Ruthven (msg) 15:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

我认为此文件作者不是上传者本人而是中华人民共和国陆军相关部门,该文件可能有侵权行为 Hamishcn (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Based on what? Just your opinion? Oppashi talk 12:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, even if it's copied, the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China declares that emblems of state organs are not copyrighted:
Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China: Article 5; This law shall not apply to:
(1) laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof;
(2) mere information about facts or happenings; and
(3) calendars, numerical tables and forms of general use, and formulas.
Flag of the People's Republic of China
Flag of the People's Republic of China

This work is from any of the items above and is in the public domain in mainland China and possibly other jurisdictions. For works whose copyright has expired, see also {{PD-China}} and {{PD-PRC}}.

PD-PRC-exempt Public domain in the People's Republic of China //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2017/09/12

Oppashi talk 12:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per Oppashi. Ruthven (msg) 15:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It contains a bird in the upper right corner, which is not part of the original painting, and therefore not in the public domain. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio anyways. Ruthven (msg) 15:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by KylieTastic as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free image from EN WP (fair use claim on commons)
Even it this is fair use, maybe it's any way PD as it seems to be pretty old. Sanandros (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No source. Not own work, rather COM:DW (placing a red dot doesn't mean you are the copyright holder of the base map). Unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: resolved. --Jcb (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has metadata with gps which should by no means be accessible to anyone in the public. This is a plant threatened by illegal collection. I uploaded this file without realising that GPS was displayed, and I now want it urgently and permanently deleted please. S Molteno (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please Abu Shawka (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has metadata with gps which should by no means be accessible to anyone in the public. This is a plant threatened by illegal collection. It needs to be urgently and permanently deleted please. S Molteno (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please Abu Shawka (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No longer useful. Apparently a fragment of a screenshot, used to demonstrate some bug over a decade ago. Jcb (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i struck my keep. perhaps this image can be transferred instead to the Deustche Wikipedia through local upload? i wonder if it would be acceptable to that project. TemTem (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in deleting, the file is no more in use. --Slartibartfass (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Poor quality slide scanned at low res, plenty of other shots of same house in Henry Parkes category Sardaka (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion; file has been uploaded in 2007. Ruthven (msg) 21:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Historical photo, own work is under doubt. Real photographer, his/her death year and publishing data are needed to determine copyright status. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality, scaled-up JPG logo. Replaced by a SVG version, and also a better PNG version is available. XXN, 15:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

photo from facebook Touzrimounir (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

photo from facebook and without valid information Touzrimounir (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has metadata with gps which should by no means be accessible to anyone in the public. This is a plant threatened by illegal collection. It needs to be urgently and permanently deleted please. S Molteno (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 22:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Appears to have been lifted from http://en.khl.ru/game/160/21714/teams/ Ytoyoda (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination: (c) KHL 2008—2017 All rights reserved. Ruthven (msg) 22:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It has been replaced by another file after corrections were made. Armchair (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 19:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Borderline derivative copyvio Ubcule (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 22:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Apparently taken from (presumed copyrighted) television series, not "own work". (Auto-translate: "Apparentemente preso da serie televisive (presumibilmente copyrighted), non "lavoro proprio".") Ubcule (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Copyright to Monkey Punch. Ruthven (msg) 22:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : rather small-sized format stated "...was taken by my friend...", but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ?  Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. We need an email to OTRS from Devarsh Desai. Ruthven (msg) 22:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Promotional article. Commons is not Wikipedia, out of scope. Achim (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination: CV. BTW, @Achim55: , you're admin and we trust you in deleting userpages unappropriated used.Ruthven (msg) 22:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : one-file-upload, rather small-sized format, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ?  Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: haven't found copies on the web. Can be own work. Ruthven (msg) 22:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Bharat.varsh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

While I can't find the origin of each of these images, they are all low quality without EXIF, some of them appear on website on the Internet prior to being uploaded here and the author has uploaded at least two obvious copyvios File:South Goa Collectorate.jpg and File:MMClogo.png under false pretense of "own work", so all the rest are suspect as well until the author clarifies which files are really their own work.

Muhandes (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete the following ones:
Corrected the license and removed this from the nomination. --Muhandes (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: the ones nominated. Kept the others. Ruthven (msg) 22:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Sakhalinio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.cenanvakfi.org/
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Out of scope anyways. Ruthven (msg) 22:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No source. Not own work, rather COM:DW (placing a red dot doesn't mean you are the copyright holder of the base map). Unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Based on another file that I DR'ed. If that one is deleted this one should also be deleted, as a derivative. E4024 (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Deleted: Clear copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No evidence for PD. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This Image(copyright) has been sold out, I have upload another image of Bengal Florican for wikipedia/infomation use. please delete this file as fast as you can, Thanking you NejibAhmed (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Licenses cannot be taken back: the new copyright holder can now use the image without following the CC BY-SA requirements (e.g. no mention of the author) or with a higher resolution, but our version is still under free license. Moreover, the new image File:Bengal Florican wiki.jpg is of lower resolution. --Ruthven (msg) 19:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: licences are not revocable. --BrightRaven (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No source. Conflicting authorship information (cannot be both own work and work from the Ukrainean government), unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • this is definitely a public domain, but I made a mistake when creating a file. The photo is taken from the site of the local council, I pointed out the author of the picture. according to the legislation of Ukraine this image is free. --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A general source claim like "Local council website" cannot be verified. Please link to the file where you found it. Jcb (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jcb: You can find the information about the coat of arms and the flag of Storozhynets Raion here (passport of Storozhynets Raion). The local government website was changed in 2013 and does not have this file anymore. Still, there is no doubt this is a depiction of the official flag of Storozhynets Raion — 21:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Both of these links show a depiction different from the depiction in nominated file, making it less likely that the nominated file is an official depiction, so that this file is likely to be a copyright violation rather than a government work. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No source. Conflicting authorship information (cannot be both own work and work from the Ukrainean government), unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • this is definitely a public domain, but I made a mistake when creating a file. The photo is taken from the site of the local council, I pointed out the author of the picture. according to the legislation of Ukraine this image is free. --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A general source claim like "Local council website" cannot be verified. Please link to the file where you found it. Jcb (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jcb: You can find the information about the coat of arms and the flag of Storozhynets Raion here (passport of Storozhynets Raion). The local government website was changed in 2013 and does not have this file anymore. Still, there is no doubt this is a depiction of the official coat of arms of Storozhynets Raion — 21:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Both of these links show a depiction different from the depiction in nominated file, making it less likely that the nominated file is an official depiction, so that this file is likely to be a copyright violation rather than a government work. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 11:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, Ruthven & Magog. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in Latvia.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in Latvia. Uploaded by INC while blocked.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Author request at wiki fa fa:ویکی‌پدیا:قهوه‌خانه/گوناگون MohammadtheEditor 13:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MohammadtheEditor: could you please provide the diff ?Mardetanha talk 11:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mardetanha: diff BTW, it is a derivative of File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-bw.svg which have not been attributed properly! -- Meisam (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Mardetanha talk 13:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Almira Centre (talk · contribs)

[edit]

See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Saudi Arabia

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 22:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Two friends who have confused Commons with their Facebook account. OoS. E4024 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per Fæ. Ruthven (msg) 21:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Sorry, again at DR. It was being speedied. E4024 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Deleted as a courtesy. --Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Ahmad.khulusi (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage in en.wiki and uploading a selfie, which is used only on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: just to link the FB page. Ruthven (msg) 22:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

the two pictures on the left are copyrighted by

Jean-Luc DERU

DAYLIGHT SPRL 355, rue Ste Marguerite, B-4000 Liège Belgium Jeanhousen (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no source indicated anyways. Ruthven (msg) 22:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by El-chupanebrej as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: false authorship and license
Link or explanation? Sanandros (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Evidence or not, but I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Gbp190. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; no source. Ruthven (msg) 22:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Henristosch (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Bogus licensing: these are not original Soviet patches, but modern replicas or probably blatant hoaxes by unknown creator - full of weird details and numerous mistakes in Russian letters and words.

Sealle (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also - Deletion request for Patches of Soviet manned space missions - there was not any special patch before en:Apollo–Soyuz progamm (see for example https://web.archive.org/web/20120922000810/http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/213/47.shtml). There were only general patches - like COA or flag of USSR, or logo of en:NPP Zvezda, and etc. Alex Spade (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz-1 to Soyuz-8 patches are not blatant hoaxes by unknown creator, they were made by Vadim Molchanov as "individual emblems" but indeed not "official". Due to this and the aforesaid source the Soyuz-TM-30 patch should be "official". Soyuz 28 too, see here. v wears the patch on his flight suit, surely not without permission of his superiors.
 Keep File:Soyuz-28-patch.png, File:Soyuz 28 mission patch.jpg, File:Soyuz-tm-30-patch.png --Ras67 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Der.works based on files under discussions

[edit]

Alex Spade (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • These loges were fabricated? Who does that und is this really proven? BTW
 Keep for Soyuz TMA-7 patch.svg, Soyuz TMA-7 Patch.jpg, Soyuz TMA-7 patch white.png, the v patch is definitely "official" see here or here. --Ras67 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official status must be proved (see Commons:Precautionary principle) for these files. It is unimportant, who has fabricated/created and/or uploaded unofficial ones but have marked them as official signs. Several sources about history of the Soviet space missions (one of them I have mentioned above) confirm that 1st official patch had been created for Soyuz-Appollo program, not early. I do not know, why Sealle have marked Soyuz-28 and Soyuz-TM-30 patches for this discussion.
But I agree that Soyuz TMA-7 patches can be excluded from this discussion. Alex Spade (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: some per nomination, kept some per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Very unlikely that the claim of "own work" is true, the picture is a work of Jennifer Caron Hall No longer a penguin (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: An implicit concession of a known bad actor is not a reason to keep a painting without explcit license from the artist via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No encyclopedic or knowledgable value. Given the contributions of the uploader, it is clear that this is a gentleman using Commons for exhibitionism, rather than to assist in the spread of free knowledge. This is also being used to troll people - the link http://www.rulesoftheinternet.com/ redirects to this image. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Regardless of the motives of the uploader, this image is better quality then the other two examples of male sexual penetrative use of objects (File:Anal2.jpg and File:Anal3.jpg) --Kramer Associates (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I disagree. The penetrative use of objects into one's anus for any reason does not need to be illustrated seperately for each sex; the actual act itself is the same regardless of gender, and it is markedly less educational than other images we have of the sexual penetrative use of objects. One would even argue that there is no educational value to an image which depicts such an easily-definable act, illustrating it is akin to illustrating how to put a penis into a cup. The image also does nothing to show the work involved with lubrication and 'easing' which is no doubt involved. To top it all, the cucumber isn't even all the way in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if the image did show the cucumber fully inserted would you argue it doesn't even show the cucumber partially inserted?

    I have no personal experience of anal penetrationl, other than having my doc examine my prostate once a year. But I gather there are many tricky and dangerous aspects of anal penetration. Our nominator calls this an "easily-definable act" -- apparently suggesting that anal penetration is so simple it does not require illustration.

    From what I have read: (1) improperly inserted objects can result in painful and potentially dangerous tearing of the anal opening; (2) penetrative objects shouldn't be shared between people, unless they are sterilized between uses; (3) objects shouldn't be shared between a woman's anus and her vagina, as the two orifices have differnt flora, and mixing the flora can be dangerous; (4) anal sex toys should be manufactured with some kind of flange, as otherwise they can be sucked into the GI tract.

    That our nominator seems to be suggesting anal penetration is so simple that it does not require illustration concerns me, and suggests that this nomination is not based so much on whether the image has educational value, but rather on simple personal distaste. Geo Swan (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith - this has nothing to do with personal distaste, I assure you, and I'm a little upset that you suggested such a thing. I have not mentioned pornography even once and quite frankly I don't care if it's pornographic or not. It's just not an educational picture. To counter your argument, the image does nothing to show the work involved with lubrication and 'easing' which is no doubt involved. This image does not do anything to show any of the four points you have raised, so I do not see how it can be educational. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. If we have better images of an act, then we do not need poor quality images of the same act. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep In my opinion this nomination has not given enough thought to the need to provide a range of images to be used for discussion of which sexual techniques were safe sex techniques, and which were unsafe. Geo Swan (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - This is the only image on commons with using any fruit or vegetable as an anal sex toy (male/female/other). If anything, we should create a category for these images, and urge further uploads. Beta M (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Please withdraw my deletion request, you have all made good points and have changed my mind. Has anyone tried to get funding to encourage more images like this to be uploaded? Perhaps we could have categories for different vegetables and objects - sitting on a chair leg is entirely different to sitting on a cucumber, which is in turn entirely different to sitting on a pair of scissors or a lawnmower blade. They are all educationally distinct, and we should be striving to get photos of every possible act, including those which portray what not to insert anally. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the above post was sarcastic. Please close the discussion as keep, by all means (you will anyway, I'm sure), but I am utterly flabbergasted at the response to this debate. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This is our only image of using food as an anal toy by men, and as far as I can tell, our only decent quality of male anal play at all. Oh, and please note, the vegetable in question is a courgette, not a cucumber. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.


File:Sodomie.jpg

I believe COM:NOT#Commons is not your personal free web host and COM:PORN are what are required here. This is not used on any Wikimedia project, and it most certainly does not have any educational value. No one is going to be looking for a photo of a man who has shoved the majority of a zucchini into his rectum. Just because there are no other images on the Commons that illustrate the use of food or botanical items in sex acts does not mean that this one image, uploaded by Cheywen (talk · contribs) who has only ever contributed photos of his anatomy to the Commons, should be retained.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Speedy keep - per my closure 1 month ago:
    • "I don't see why this is not educational "- this is still one of our only images of male anal toy use, and it's by far our highest quality one.
    • This is not a low-quality image which adds nothing, so COM:PORN is not relevant - as noted above, it adds something distinct to our collection, and while it isn't high quality, nor is it low quality - subject is perfectly in focus.
    • Not being used on a wikimedia project is not a reason for deletion.
    • See previous comments Re educational value.
    In summary, no valid reasons for deletion have been presented, I request a speedy closure. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No project uses this and no project is going to use it. No one on any Wikimedia project has any intention of using a photo of a man with a zucchini shoved into his rectum. This is either being used as a shock image or because someone needs to have this photo uploaded to share with people. I completely disagree with all of your closures of this image, and others like it. There could be much better images of male anal toy use (disregarding File:Anal2.jpg, File:Anal3.jpg, File:Anal 2.jpg, and File:Anal 3.jpg), but a vegetable is not one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually going to ask that you recuse yourself from this debate, as I have on the other deletion requests I started, but you beat me to the punch.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not require that other Wikimedia projects use this, that has never been a reason for deletion. If you do not believe me impartial, that is fine, but I will delete things if I consider them to be out of scope/etc. I simply do not believe that this is. Human sexuality is an important area of study, and yes, people do stick vegetables up their backsides (though really, a courgette, yuck). -mattbuck (Talk) 07:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a requirement, but it should be a factor in cases such as these where it is explicit pornography in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagreed with User:Jcb's closures. But I only suggested he shouldn't close discussions, and that instead he offer his views as a non-admin participant in the discussions. Is there some reason you don't think Mattbuck should offer opinions here? Geo Swan (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep speedily. People should check when the previous deletion request ends before second nomination. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I should be able to make my own better arguments on this image which has no educational value whatsoever. Just because an image is freely licensed and uploaded to the Commons does not mean it has to be retained when it is of no use to the Wikimedia projects the Commons serves.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons I offered the first time this image was nominated for deletion. Yes, I understand some contributors here are personally shocked or personally offended by frank depiction of human sexuality. There are things that shock me too, but when that material is in the project scope I live with my personal feelings of shock, and request you do likewise. As I argued before, in a world with too much transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and too many unwanted pregnancies there is a legitimate educational need for images that illustrate alternate ways of expressing sexuality. Are anal toys a safe sex technique? The answer is complicated, and illustration helps. Geo Swan (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a photo of a man who has taken a zucchini and shoved it into his anus, and has only uploaded other photos where he has posted his genitalia in various states. There is no educational value in a photo of a vegetable rammed up into the nether regions, particularly when it is not being utilized by any Wikimedia project to teach people about the subjects you have brought up. This is someone posting their selfmade porn onto the commons, and it is only being kept because they followed the rules here and released it into the creative commons. Just because it's free for us to use, does not mean we should keep it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. In my opinion although we might speculate uploaders have an exhibitionistic intent, it is not particularly relevant if the image is in scope. You have made it quite clear you don't recognize the image as being in scope. But it seems to me you haven't really said why. Geo Swan (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not in scope because none of the projects seem to have a need for a photograph like this. In fact, I bet most of the projects block it from being used because of its nature. You keep calling on "safe sex" and whatnot in retaining photos like this. It is most certainly not safe to take a summer squash and insert it into your rectum. All insecticides and whatnot seem fairly dangerous. And I believe we should take into account the behavior of the original uploader, who has only spent his time on the Commons uploading photographs of his penis in various states of erection as well as close ups of his anus. While he is free to do this, does this site not have enough photos of these types? And particularly ones that do not utilize botanical items?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, i'll bite. Please provide a range of photos on this site of this kind. If you can't then the site does not yet have enough photos of these types. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Gee. I dunno. Maybe in Category:Sexual penetrative use of dildos or Category:Sexual penetrative use of food?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              This is the only male photo in the sexual food category, and the only other male photos in the dildo category you also nominated for deletion. So no, we don't have enough photos of this type. Gender DOES matter. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              An anus is an anus is an anus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              Eh.... no. Now to me, one flower is very much like another. I can maybe make vague assertions - I could probably tell a fuschia from a daffodil from a daisy - but I am not an expert on the subject, so I leave it to others to tell me whether one image adds to the educational content. The fact that you seem unwilling or unable to make the same choice, and instead believe that, in the words of Ronald Reagan, if you've seen one tree you've seen them all, to my mind makes you in no position to cast judgment on the subject. I can tell you, from personal experience, that anuses can be very different - some are the sort of classic "o" shape, some are more like a slit, some are brown, some are pale, some are hairy, some aren't, some, for reasons entirely unclear to me, consistently taste of chocolate.
              The hallmark of a good editor - at commons or your beloved en.wp - is to know what you know about, and confine yourself to fixing things like punctuation in that you know nothing about. You are breaking that rule. To give an en.wp analogy, you, who (in this analogy) dropped out of school at age 14, have gone along to the physics article and decided that since there's an article on chemistry, this one is totally unnecessary.
              If you know nothing about the subject, you are not in a position to concern yourself with its details. This goes for everyone - if you think that when you've seen one tree you've seen them all, you shouldn't be declaring that photos of oak trees are replaceable because you've seen a photo of a palm tree. Same here. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              Wow what an incredibly bad case of apples and oranges. I'm sorry that I'm not a connoisseur of anuses and don't know that this particular photo of a zucchini-infused one is special and is therefore within the scope of the commons. However, as Alpha Quadrant has been pointing out, COM:SCOPE explicitly disallows images such as this one. It is a file not legitimately in use. Cheywen does not use it in his userspace on any project, and it is not being used by any sister project. And there is no rule to be broken, as you claim. An editor is allowed to contribute in any way he or she sees fit on any of the Wikimedia projects, as they are free resources that anyone can edit. In this case, I see that a photograph of a man who has taken a zucchini and inserted it into his anus for sexual pleasure is not appropriate for the commons per COM:PORN and at the very least the recently quoted section of COM:SCOPE.
              And let me say this before you suddenly use, as we say on en.wp, a w:Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, and compare the over abundance of photos of, say, the Eiffel Tower or the Forbidden City and say that I must go through them and delete any photo that is currently not in use. There is no feasible way you can compare photos of architecture or world landmarks with the homemade porn that individuals such as Cheywen (talk · contribs) have only contributed to the Commons, as you have done with the physics/chemistry analogy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              COM:PORN says, and I quote, We may remove low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images. But this is not low quality. It is in fact fairly high quality - over 1 MP, well-lit, in focus, and no distractions. Therefore COM:PORN does not apply to this. As for rule-breaking, if I came along to some en.wp article I knew nothing about and nominated it for deletion because it didn't seem important to me, then I would be swiftly reverted. It may not be a written rule but it's effectively a rule. The same is true here - if you are the sort of person who believes one tree is the same as another, you shouldn't be nominating trees for deletion on grounds of content. Similarly if you believe all anuses are the same, you shouldn't be nominating them for deletion on grounds of content. Your actions on Commons are frankly trollish, and smack of IDONTLIKEIT. We host stuff people find offensive, deal with it. If you find it offensive, here's a quick tip: don't look at it. Maybe you don't stick things up your backside for sexual pleasure, but a lot of people do, and a lot of those people don't always use purpose-made sex toys for it. Sex toys are expensive, it's understandable. You are simply trying to impose your moral judgments - that people shouldn't be educated about such acts - on the rest of the world, and that is frankly not something that anyone should be willing to tolerate. You have shown no capacity to listen to arguments that anyone makes, and you have just wasted several hours' of other contributors' time that could have otherwise been spent on something more edifying. I will not be making further comments on this DR, or your others. I am done wasting my time on you. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              I am not trying to impose anything on anyone. This is just a photo that need not be hosted on the commons because no one will have any sort of possible use for it on any Wikimedia project. I may not be as well versed in whatever the hell anuses are supposed to be, but there is no functional difference between a woman's anus and a man's anus when a foreign body is shoved into it. I don't agree with any of the arguments you or anyone else has put forward, because they frankly do not make sense to me. There is no educational purpose to this photo, or any of the other files that I have proposed for deletion. No Wikimedia project is going to use a (high quality) photo of a man who has taken a zucchini and put it into his anus on any Wikipedia article, Wikibooks book, Wikiversity lesson, Wiktionary entry, etc. because there is no demand for it. This is just someone's home made pornography that has been uploaded, and you and anyone else who is proposing that it should be kept is only doing it because it is has a compatible license and it is not a copyright violation from somewhere else. I do not like the photo. I also do not like File:Shanon Cucumber 0415.jpg or several other images. This is just one that I have discovered that I believe is not within the scope of this project. But calling me a troll and saying I am trying to pose my morality just smacks of bad faith, as has been evident from the beginning. This photo and the others should have been taken down a while ago. I am not trying to censor the Commons. However, I do think that if a precedent is set here, the Commons should take an inventory of its sexuality files and get rid of ones from people who have done nothing else but take photos of their own genitals in various states of arousal or intercourse and determine if they really are in scope, or you're just helping someone keep their homemade porn on the Wikimedia servers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly out of scope, and Mattbuck's deletion reflects his personal POV and not policy. Not sure why people want to fill up Commons with shoddy images that serve no purpose. Educational requires proof, not hypothetical proof, which is something that people strangely forget. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - the use of vegetables as sex toys is not a subject which realistically needs educational illustration. Out of scope. --Claritas (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what censors would say, too. ;-) Some topics are just bad topics which shouldn't and do not exist, hm? Btw: your username is interesting in that context - thanks for the amusement. --Saibo (Δ) 13:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep A bizarre photo, but not of unreasonable technical quality and with potential educational use, if only for proctologists to see what people are likely to do to themselves. Chaseme originally raised the problem of misuse by www.rulesoftheinternet.com, that is an issue (though not a current re-direct to this image). However, this is not a policy based rationale for deletion, further if deleted, the external site is likely to redirect to other surprising images on Commons ad infinitum. A better technical solution is needed to address this problem rather than using DRs on every image for which such mischief is made. -- (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy says that potential use is not proof of use and cannot be a determiner of usefulness. It is either used or not used. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any such statement in Commons:SCOPE, only "realistically useful for an educational purpose". -- (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose, and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be the subject of the file." It is right there. Notice the "does not magically become" which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. This clause describes your keep vote and those like it. It was put there to stop such hypothetical arguments. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not speculate about what I might be unwilling to do, I find it offensive. This discussion is about a file, not about what you think might go on in my head. My illustration of educational use for a proctologist was tangible enough, I am sure you are aware that educational value need not be judged solely on whether a file is currently used on Wikimedia projects or not; though your incorrect paraphrasing "it is either used or not used" gives the impression otherwise. -- (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not speculate about what I might be unwilling to do, I find it offensive." Really? Because it is offensive that you pretended the sentences following the section that you quoted did not exist. That isn't good behavior nor does it verify that you have a legitimate point. It doesn't matter who you claim can use it, because policy says such are inappropriate. You have to understand our policies before you respond here. You should have apologized there but you didn't. That isn't good. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop cherry picking the policies that we find useful? Why not raise a de facto policy that once a consensus is reached the second nomination should not be started in a month time? We are waisting tons of time that could be spent making a project a better place (i.e. not a place with less images, but rather a more educational portal). The truth of the matter is that Wikipedia use does not, did not, and will not define the only criteria for inclusion on commons. That is because it's a different project. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Despite any assertions to the contrary, this image is realistically useful for an educational purpose. A sentence like “No one on any Wikimedia project has any intention of using a photo of a man with a zucchini shoved into his rectum.” is doubtful considering the kind of images one can find in the German wikipedia (they placed this image on their front page for a full day, and this image is right at the beginning of de:Vaginalverkehr, just two examples). Also Commons is not only a media file repository for the Wikimedia projects, it's also a repository for other educational projects, and that doesn't rule out sexual education. Labelling sexual images one dislikes as “porn” won't change that. So: the image is of OK quality, it is in project scope, and what intentions the uploader may or may not have had when uploading it is irrelevant. --Rosenzweig τ 00:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reason: Obscenity 90.73.237.83 10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: This is just a redirect,. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]