Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/02/13

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 February 13th, 2018
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 work of a non-free image in a common set available on the web, including hereAndrei S. Talk 11:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:04, 13 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.

Duplcate and low resolution of anther file: "File:New Mexico - North America - Radio Telescopes - Radio (4893503088).jpg" it also have a bad name.

Editor-1 (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{Duplicate}} for duplicates Vera (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, redirected Vera (talk) 13:00, 13 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.

Spam--this image was used for promotional purposes at MediaWiki. The account has been blocked and the page in which this image was used for advertising has been deleted. -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Herbythyme at 10:00, 13 Februar 2018 UTC: Out of project scope: promotional content - --Krdbot 13:38, 13 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.

Schreibfehler, Datei geeleert --Dguendel 09:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


Deleted: typo. --Achim (talk) 15:02, 13 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.

company logo, not free 淺藍雪 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:52, 14 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.

No description, no valid source (at least, none that can clarify the author and copyright status). Its title claims some sort of relation to paper.dropbox.com but please go ahead and click on this link. Do you see it there? I don't. There are a lot of fan-made icons on the net. iconarchive.com is full of them. How do we know this isn't one of them? (Actually, the lh3.googleusercontent.com URL makes me suspect that it is found via Google Image Search and might very well be fan-made.) We have serious COM:SCOPE issue here. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Hello, I am not the original user that uploaded this file, but I was the one who uploaded the latest version of this logo. Thanks for noticing this mistake. I have added a proper description for this file. The latest version of this file was extracted from the official branding guideline from Dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com/branding#apps), and I uploaded the file "Dropbox Paper Android" to replace the old one that did not provide a valid source. I hope I have solved this issue. Cheers -Wefk423 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wefk423: It is the Android app icon? Wow, I did NOT see that coming. I thought I checked everything! Okay, this is embarassing... 😳
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:38, 14 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.

Having searched around the site, I was unable to find these images (either separated or merged) on the species' page. There are no archived copies that feature these images either. If this image is found and verified to be owned by this site, it would be usable. Until then, this should be deleted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion: Commons:Grandfathered old files. --Yann (talk) 04:24, 13 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.

This is an appeal for the closure of the previous deletion request. The closing admin has been asked to reevaluate but responded in a tongue in cheek fashion, so I am requesting community reevaluation. Additionally, the reasoning for the closure is wrong given there was a rationale for deletion: that the image's licensing is not obvious and thus Commons cannot assume the rights.

As per the previous nomination, there is no evidence that this image, uploaded on May 23, 2006 (after the introduction of OTRS), was released under a license that allows for unequivocal free use. There is no entry with either this image compilation or the two images separated on the species' entry page on entomart.be. It should also be noted there are no archived versions of this page that include these images, either, including a snapshot from November 9, 2007.

The grandfather clause cannot be used as a reasoning for keep here, either. The image's licensing does not give any mention to private email licensing. This discussion does not give any impression that we should allow an image to be kept simply because of it's upload date being prior to January 1, 2007. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: The user uploaded several files from his old website (e.g. File:Eulithis pyraliata01.jpg), all with attribution license, as stated on the website itself. There is no reason to suppose that this one is an exception to the rule. Ruthven (msg) 16:49, 14 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.

out of scope; personal essay theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: vandalism. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 14 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.

More Copyvois by same uploader. Files uploaded by EmelineMandy (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyvios. Even paintings by David Hockney] and [Francis Bacon] are still in copyright. See her user page on [1] . Suggest it time now for a block for repeated vios.

P.g.champion (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 06:26, 15 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.

Book cover Migebert (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: clear copyright violation. --JuTa 10:37, 18 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.

Picture not used since 2010 of one not-notable person, low quality, OTRS request #2018021310011588. Gratus (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Removal_requests. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:22, 18 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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Zihad.sheikh1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: Commons is not a personal Webhost

Afifa Afrin (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Zihad.sheikh1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused personal photos and selfies and unlikely to be used in a project.

Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:06, 19 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.

Files uploaded by Mohamedhindy (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:42, 20 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.

Unused other than on an abandoned draft at enwiki Home Lander (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:42, 20 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.

Personal essay; out of scope. See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:44, 20 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.

Unused except on an abandoned draft at enwiki Home Lander (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:44, 20 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.

unauthorized picture 173.244.48.81 02:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:45, 20 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.

revenge porn 173.244.48.136 20:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No evidence that this is revenge porn. Image is in use so I see no reason to delete. -IagoQnsi (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. Ruthven (msg) 09:59, 27 March 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.

Small penis w/o ... Sorry, small file w/o camera EXIF; dubious own work. COM:PCP. E4024 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

What do you think, is the file in project scope or not? Taivo (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:00, 20 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.

Reasons for deletion request -LebaneseBebe (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Requesting to delete IMAGE not page. New to wiki, pic should not have been uploaded.[reply]

 Delete speedily, as it is accidentally created and based on a copyvio image. --E4024 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination by Túrelio. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:01, 20 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.

Unlikely "own work" by uploader as claimed. All his other uploads have been found to be copyvios. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:04, 20 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.

Out of COM:SCOPE, had been used to vandalize :fr article[2]. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:09, 20 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.

Unused photo with a tourist, out of project scope. The same place without a tourist is File:يونس028.jpg. Taivo (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:10, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:11, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:12, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:22, 20 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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Boishakhi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused personal photos. Unlikely to be used in a project. Commons is not a personal Webhost

Afifa Afrin (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:23, 20 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.

COM:DW, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:22, 20 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.

Files uploaded by Memilia87 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:25, 20 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.

Out of scope: Unused selfie. Unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:26, 20 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.

unrelated pic 2600:1700:E751:8AC0:B93C:AFE5:769C:F784 01:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion - I reverted to the former version and deleted the out of scope version. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:26, 20 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.

Ensayo personal; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:27, 20 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.

Ensayo personal; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:27, 20 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.

Ensayo personal; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:27, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:29, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:30, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:31, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:31, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:31, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:32, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio anyway. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:32, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:33, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:33, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:33, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:33, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio anyway. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:35, 20 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.

It's a piece of derivative work of a copyrighted magazine. Antigng (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:35, 20 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.

per COM:ADVERT Not Responding... (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination+photomontage without sources. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:36, 20 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.

per COM:ADVERT Not Responding... (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination+unlikely to be own work (though small, there are prior catch with google). --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:38, 20 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.

It's a piece of derivative work of a copyrighted magazine. Antigng (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:38, 20 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.

It's a piece of derivative work of a copyrighted magazine. Antigng (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:38, 20 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.

It's a piece of derivative work of a copyrighted magazine. Antigng (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:38, 20 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.

It's a piece of derivative work of a copyrighted magazine. Antigng (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:38, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:40, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:40, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:40, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:43, 20 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.

Out of scope: Commons is not a private travel photo album.--Kai3952 (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 20 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.

Files uploaded by Julia mji (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Derivative artwork. Not own work. Uploader is a paid editor who works for these artists per their enwiki user page. We need COM:OTRS permission from the actual artist to release these under a free license.

Majora (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:47, 20 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.

per COM:ADVERT Not Responding... (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:47, 20 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.

per COM:ADVERT Not Responding... (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:48, 20 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.

no educational value Not Responding... (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: copyvio. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:51, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:52, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:52, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:52, 20 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.

no educational value - only usage is in an old talk archive Not Responding... (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: photomontage without sources. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:54, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:54, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:54, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:55, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:55, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination+no permission. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:55, 20 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.

no educational value Not Responding... (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination+photomontage. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination+no permission. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:58, 20 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.

per COM:ADVERT Not Responding... (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:58, 20 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.

per COM:ADVERT Not Responding... (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:58, 20 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.

No evidence of Free licence. The Brooklyn Museum page attributes copyright to the artist, Kehinde Wiley. The Brooklyn Museum copyright notice states: "The Use of text and images in which Brooklyn Museum holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. Copyright and other proprietary rights in material on this site may be held by individuals or entities other than or in addition to the Brooklyn Museum."

Thus, while some Brooklyn Museum content is CC-licensed, the museum does not appear to control copyright of this painting. Animalparty (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great file description, but it should be deleted. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 20 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.

(C) all rights reserved on source page.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:01, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:01, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 20 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.

Better version already on File:Coat_of_arms_of_Kenya_(Official).svg Lyndonbaines (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination (the file was used and I created a redirect). --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:09, 20 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.

Obsolete redirect Rkt2312 (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9   14:38, 10 February 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.

I dont upload it for long-term purpose, just for testing only Lyndonbaines (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:05, 20 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.

No evidence that the painting itself is under a free license:[3]. Photographs of copyrighted works do not change the copyright status of the original work, per COM:DW Animalparty (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:12, 20 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.

Private photos, not used.

Kulmalukko (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:35, 20 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.

I nominate this file for deletion. Thanks. Thewolfchild (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep You can see that these are not dolls.--Sanandros (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel and Sanandros:

  • Changing the name would be fine with me. But let's be clear here, they are "dolls". And not just for children, but for adults. They are called "One Sixth Warriors", that are made to look 'life-like' and have highly detailed and very accurate looking accessories, clothing, gear, weapons, etc. In this image, you see three 12-inch high army dolls posed on a table-top diorama. Just like with some model makers, a lot of effort goes into the detailing. The fact remains, these are not real people and they certainly aren't "RCMP ERT officers" So something needs to be done to address this. If not deletion, then change the name to reflect what they are, and more importantly, what they are not. Thewolfchild (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but the photorapher said it was a shooting for the RCMP check here in the comments. Also check this, this or this pic where you can see that they are not puppets. In the last linked pic the photorapher even describes the whole situation.--Sanandros (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "photographer", I take it you're referring to "Nigel", who's Flikr account these images come from? I read his comments and he is clearly having some fun stringing along the commenters. Quote: Sure glad they are on our side.......Emergency response team RCMP So l am walking the beach when out jumps a dude in full scuba gear sporting a pistol, hmmm something is odd here what does he plan to shoot......i start to slowly back away............next comes a car and out jumps a dude with a sniper rifle and he starts putting on war paint.....hmmmm backing away a little faster now, next pulls up a car and out jumps a dude in full chemical warfare gear hmmmmmmmmmmmmm next an armored car arrives..............ends up being a photo shoot for the RCMP . these are the guys who put there life on the line for you and me.

As if something like that would ever really happen. In another comment he claims they are from the Vancouver Police Service. He also claims these are photos for a police website. But, this is clearly tongue-in-cheek humour, he's clowning around. If you look at the photos, you'll notice they're staged so that nothing in the surroundings can give away scale. Except for this image where he poses one of the dolls in front of some seeding Kentucky Bluegrass. If that is a real 6-foot person, that grass is HUGE! If you look carefully at the uniforms and equipment, you can see the scale is off on things like stitching and zippers. The grips on the hands are all the same. The texture of the skin is too smooth, and the one face you see clearly looks like a Ken-doll. The eyes fail the "Uncanny Valley" test. But overall, they're very detailed and makes for convincing photos. Check out their website, or go to Google images and look up One Sixth Warriors; you'll see hundreds of photos of similar military and police figurines, this guy is obviously Canadian and has RCMP badging for his OSW dolls.

Anyway... like I said, I don't care if you keep the images. But if you do, they need to be renamed, as they are misrepresentative. They are not "RCMP tactical officers", (is there even any permission from the RCMP to post these? There is clearly RCMP logos visible), and it should be made clear these are figurines, not real police, not real weapons or equipment, not real people. Thewolfchild (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are some more images of One Sixth Warriors dolls and another similar 1/6th toy line; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The uniforms, weapons and equipment are very detailed and the faces are quite life-like, but they are still just 12-inch high toys. Some of them are dressed in "FBI" gear. I think it would be inappropriate, if not outright disallowed, if I were to upload these and claim they are "FBI tactical rescue officers", without permission of the FBI or even clarifying that they're just dolls and they aren't real people. Thewolfchild (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The toys are copyrighted as scupltures. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 20 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.

Out of scope: Commons is not a private travel photo album.--Kai3952 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep this is not the upload of a user's vacation; this is a file a third party uploaded to Flikr and then a user uploaded to Commons. I don't believe it's worth second-guessing users when they upload a few files from Flikr, given the stress deletion adds to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prosfilaes: This is not a reason. Because the content must be educationally useful. See COM:DG policy for what is out of scope. I don't know why you say that "I don't believe it's worth second-guessing users when they upload a few files from Flikr", but I can tell you why I did it. What I saw in the file was they took a family photo while traveling. Obviously a souvenir photo! So therefore, I think that this file may not be educationally useful for much. We should follow COM:PS to upload files to Commons, and COM:PS policy also applies to upload files from Flikr.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One quick point I forgot to say, I know that there are others who do the same, and you can see: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mikuláš_v_roce_20012.jpg Thus it can be seen that this file should be deleted. Is there any reason to keep it? --Kai3952 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't ping me like that; I watch these DRs, and if I'm not watching these DRs, it's because I don't care. Multiple pings in a short time is very annoying.
      • Someone said the content was educationally useful by uploading it to Commons. I'm not inclined to second-guess them. It's easier and socially less expensive to trust people on stuff like that in the case of a couple photos instead of fighting every photo out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Is it an optimal photo? No. Is it the only photo we have of the station from that angle? Yes. Educationally useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination -- not in use, not likely to be used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 20 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.

Out of scope: Commons is not a private travel photo album.--Kai3952 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep this is not the upload of a user's vacation; this is a file a third party uploaded to Flikr and then a user uploaded to Commons. I don't believe it's worth second-guessing users when they upload a few files from Flikr, given the stress deletion adds to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prosfilaes: This is not a reason. Because the content must be educationally useful. See COM:DG policy for what is out of scope. I don't know why you say that "I don't believe it's worth second-guessing users when they upload a few files from Flikr", but I can tell you why I did it. What I saw in the file was they took a family photo while traveling. Obviously a souvenir photo! So therefore, I think that this file may not be educationally useful for much. We should follow COM:PS to upload files to Commons, and COM:PS policy also applies to upload files from Flikr.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One quick point I forgot to say, I know that there are others who do the same, and you can see: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mikuláš_v_roce_20012.jpg Thus it can be seen that this file should be deleted. Is there any reason to keep it? --Kai3952 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination -- not likely to be used. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 20 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.

Out of scope: Commons is not a private travel photo album.--Kai3952 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep this is not the upload of a user's vacation; this is a file a third party uploaded to Flikr and then a user uploaded to Commons. I don't believe it's worth second-guessing users when they upload a few files from Flikr, given the stress deletion adds to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prosfilaes: This is not a reason. Because the content must be educationally useful. See COM:DG policy for what is out of scope. I don't know why you say that "I don't believe it's worth second-guessing users when they upload a few files from Flikr", but I can tell you why I did it. What I saw in the file was they took a family photo while traveling. Obviously a souvenir photo! So therefore, I think that this file may not be educationally useful for much. We should follow COM:PS to upload files to Commons, and COM:PS policy also applies to upload files from Flikr.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One quick point I forgot to say, I know that there are others who do the same, and you can see: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mikuláš_v_roce_20012.jpg Thus it can be seen that this file should be deleted. Is there any reason to keep it? --Kai3952 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 20 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.

Google Translate says “© Railway Photo Gallery TrainPhoto and authors of materials, 2012 - 2018 / Use of photographs and other materials published on the site is allowed only with the permission of their authors and the obligatory indication of the link to the site.” The authors have not given permission here for wikipedia. Leoboudv (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 20 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.

This is not an actual bronze, and it's a oracle. The uploader Micheletb uploaded this with the note "Actually taken from the oracle series for illustration purpose", but it is only misleading. 匋 has no bronze according to any academic source like Chinese Etymology, Sinica Database, Multi-function Chinese Character Database and Chinese Text Project. English and French Wiktionary are using #ifexist to display this file, so deleting it won't affect those two pages. Wargaz (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The name may be incorrect, but that is not a reason for deleting a commons file. If the name is incorrect, the correct action would be to rename it correctly, in order for it to be used correctly by the corresponding pages. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - renamed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 20 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.

Out of scope: Commons is not a private travel photo album.--Kai3952 (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 20 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.

Out of scope - unused personal image Not Responding... (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 20 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.

Violates COM:SCOPE because it is a fake logo. (Windows 8.1 uses the logo seen in File:Windows 8 logo and wordmark.svg.) Because of its fake nature, it is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as COM:SCOPE requires. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have even invisibly commented a warning for those who want to "fix" it, and the warning says that there is no authentic official version of Windows 8.1. I have wanted to delete the image anyway. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader also agrees to delete. Taivo (talk) 13:54, 9 March 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.

Violates COM:SCOPE because it is a fake logo. (Windows 8.1 uses the logo seen in File:Windows 8 logo and wordmark.svg.) Because of its fake nature, it is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as COM:SCOPE requires; in fact, it is counter-educational, as it teaches the wrong thing. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination deleted by Ymblanter. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:58, 20 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.

Violates COM:SCOPE because it is a fake logo. (Windows 8.1 uses the logo seen in File:Windows 8 logo and wordmark.svg.) Because of its fake nature, it is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as COM:SCOPE requires; in fact, it is counter-educational, as it teaches the wrong thing. See also the previous two DRs for this logo.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete I just removed it from eswiki. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/upload&user=Un+usuario+de+esta+p%C3%A1gina should say enough. - Alexis Jazz 07:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: you could speedy it as G1 (nonsense), G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus), F5 (Missing essential information, author is wrong) and/or F6 (License laundering). G4 is probably the most fitting. - Alexis Jazz 08:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. User:KylieTastic had already marked this as copyvio before the DR was started. User:B dash removed that copyvio template. Seeing as this was already speedy before you started this DR, I just put SD|G4 on it. - Alexis Jazz 08:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, per nomination. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 13 May 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.

Uploader seems to be the same as the portrayed subject, but this doesn't look like a selfie. So the uploader doesn't own the copyright. Mbch331 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:51, 20 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.

Self-promo (used only for now-deleted Wikidata item). Mahir256 (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:51, 20 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.

Self-promo (used only for now-deleted Wikidata item). Mahir256 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:51, 20 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.

Files uploaded by Aashish Kaushik (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope: photo's aren't used on any project. Wikidata item for the portrayed person has been deleted due to lacking notability.

Mbch331 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:51, 20 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.

Unused personal photo Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 20 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.

Out of scope: low-resolution mirrored crop of File:A Nawab of Mughal dynasty, India, 17th-18th century.jpg with a completely fictional description (see en:w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial house of Khora Seyal, uploaded by a sock who was blocked on en-wiki. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 20 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.

The images are out of scope. They are symbols of a non-notable.organization.

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The images are out of scope. They are symbols of a non-notable.organization.

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 20 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.

Small, blurred and unused image. B dash (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 20 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.

The images are out of scope. They are symbols of a non-notable.organization.

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 20 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.

Delete. Not a notable painter. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 20 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.

Out of scope and unused personal file. Please see Category talk:Unused personal files. Note: Uploaded by a one-time visitor who identifies the person as "autor"/writer. Does anybody know him? Really own work? E4024 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 20 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.

personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:52, 20 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.

If the text is really useful, then it should be written directly into some project. For example into Wikiquote, if you know the author. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:52, 20 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.

"The text of Dungeon World is released under a Creative Commons Attribution license" does not cover a logo from the webpage, or any graphic at all in fact. Prosfilaes (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Dungeon World's logo. this is Dungeon World's logo - https://www.google.com/search?q=dungeon+worlds+logo&rlz=1C1ARAB_enUS567US597&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb0YPSxqLZAhWC5YMKHfStDucQ_AUICigB&biw=1536&bih=810 This is a text snapshot from the the Dungeon World website. The creators released the text under a Creative Commons Attribution license. I apologize for saving this file as "Logo," that was my mistake. This is actually the game's catchphrase.

Again, logo or not, the license only covers text. I'm pretty sure it's referring to https://github.com/Sagelt/Dungeon-World which actually states a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (though the combination of the CC-BY and Open Gaming License is going to give me nightmares worse than anything anything in the game could give me) and states that none of the images are included.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to understand your objection here. This is not an illustration or piece of art from the Dungeon World website. This is the game's title and catchphrase screenshot from the official website where it is freely view-able to anyone with an Internet connection. It's not a piece of art, a photograph, the logo of the game, etc. It's the title and catchphrase, both of which are text which were released by the game's designers under the Creative Commons Attribution license. It's only considered an "image" insofar as it was copied directly from the game's official site. The game's Wikipedia page contains proper citation and a link to the official Dungeon World website, so how could this screenshot be violating the designers' copyright?

Actually, I just looked up that the catchphrase is lifted from Apocalypse World - the game and engine that Dungeon world is based on.

It's a .png file--that is, w:Portable Network Graphics, which "is a raster graphics file format ... assigned MIME media type image/png". There's clearly a drawing there behind the words. It's not just words in a fancy font.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respectfully disagree. I don't feel that there is "clearly" a drawing behind the words. That looks like the background to the text to me and the title and catchphrase are far more prevalent in the screenshot.


Deleted: per nomination -- This is clearly a logo and clearly copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 20 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.

Unused personal file. Out of scope. Note: It is in the picture collection of another user but that is not a case accepted for COM:INUSE. E4024 (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 20 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.

While the original uploader at Pixabay has contributed lots of Dhammakaya-related images from a large variety of cameras and I'm not sure if they're all her personal work, I'm willing to assume that she represents the temple and/or the original creators in providing the images under a free licence. However, this image is clearly taken/scanned from a printed booklet, and without info on original authorship, this has to be regarded as an unauthorised derivative work. Paul_012 (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012, I think you are probably right that the image was scanned from a booklet of some kind. She does appear to be photographer though, judging from some of her pictures, which appear a bit personal. But yes, the picture should probably be deleted on copyright grounds.
Speaking about pictures from Thailand, however, previously a black-white picture taken in the 1940s-1950s was deleted from the page en:Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro. I felt this was rather far-fetched, since copyright from a picture from 1940s-1950s Thailand is impossible to retrieve, and the picture has become widespread and iconic. The picture can be found here. I would like to know what you think of this matter. The picture was not uploaded by me, by the way, but it affected an article I worked on.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 20 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.

privacy violation minor - not notable also MoiraMoira (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:53, 20 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.

no relevance - privcy violation minor MoiraMoira (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:53, 20 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.

actualités Francisdelagodet (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:53, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:54, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:54, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:54, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:54, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:54, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:54, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:54, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:54, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 20 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.

double Fran6gionges (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mairie-redim1024.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

fran6gionges n'existe plus Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 20 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.

fran6gionges n'existe plus Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 20 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.

fran6gionges n'existe plus Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 20 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.

fran6gionges n'existe plus Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: ça veut dire quoi?. Ruthven (msg) 15:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:55, 20 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.

fran6gionges n'existe plus Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 20 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.

fran6gionges n'existe plus Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 20 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.

Tout à changer Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 20 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.

fran6gionges n'existe plus Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 20 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.

fran6gionges n'existe plus Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:56, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:57, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:57, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:57, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:57, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:57, 20 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.

fran6gionges n'existe plus Francisdelagodet (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 15:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:57, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:57, 20 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.

Unused logo of unknown thing, probably out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 08:58, 20 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.

actualites Francisdelagodet (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. No valid reason for deletion. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jianhui67 TC 08:57, 20 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.

violation de copyright : https://www.closermag.fr/people/diam-s-qu-est-elle-devenue-735497 Salsero35 (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:06, 20 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.

Files uploaded by Abhi140896 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Probably not own works: many copies on the Internet (but smaller).

Yann (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:07, 20 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.

Files uploaded by Jasmine7382 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal photos, out of scope

Gbawden (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:06, 20 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.

Bangladesh Center for Communication Programs is not mentioned in en.wiki. Its logo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:07, 20 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.

Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:07, 20 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.

Per COM:SCOPE: personal image which is unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:07, 20 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.

Files uploaded by Karine.B (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:08, 20 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.

Out of Commons:Project scope: diagram of questionable notability, used on test page. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:08, 20 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.

Files uploaded by Asuka83 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://evoimoveis.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Revestimento-Externo-Janeiro-2014.jpg.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:08, 20 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.

Unlikely authorship claims based on the low resolution, watermark, and the uploader's history. Apparently grabbed from https://www.toperfect.com/Islamic-13.html. LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:08, 20 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.

Per COM:SCOPE: personal image not in use Takeaway (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:08, 20 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.

copyright is from screenshots from trailer 2A02:1812:41D:B800:C64:6E67:B69D:B9C 17:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear copyright violation. IJReid (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:09, 20 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.

copyright is from screenshots from trailer 2A02:1812:41D:B800:C64:6E67:B69D:B9C 17:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 TC 09:09, 20 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.

This is not an actual oracle, and it's a bronze. The uploader Micheletb uploaded this with the note "Actually taken from the bronze series for illustration purpose", but it is only misleading. 匋 has no oracle according to any academic source like Chinese Etymology, Sinica Database, Multi-function Chinese Character Database and Chinese Text Project. English and French Wiktionary are using #ifexist to display this file, so deleting it won't affect those two pages. Wargaz (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The name may be incorrect, but that is not a reason for deleting a commons file. If the name is incorrect, the correct action would be to rename it correctly, in order for it to be used correctly by the corresponding pages. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 20 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.

unnecessary 88.244.148.77 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. Sanbec (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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's hard to see the purpose of the picture - strange, weird and artificial position - and without face Wildone.dk (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion - in use, therefore cannot be deleted for this reason. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 20 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.
Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Cheers. --E4024 (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 20 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.

Unused file from Category:Personal files from panoramio. Looks too personal IMO. E4024 (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 20 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.

File from Category:Personal files from panoramio. Looks too personal IMO. E4024 (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 20 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.

No evidence of permission, no exif data. This image is all over the internet, but that may have originated here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 20 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.

claimed to be "own work", although a URL is visible in the image Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 20 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.

Doesn't look like an own work; more like an official pic from some page or is an enlarged passport photo. E4024 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 20 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.

Bad quality unused file. Is she in some sort of sauna? Is it vapour on the air that makes parts of the image invisible? (I hope it is not a superior form of photography art that I fail to appreciate. :) E4024 (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This Image and all its accompanying ones in the category for it are not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Redundant to a better image. Not used or linked elsewhere. Non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the (amateurish) artist's skills. Self-promotion. (read the accompanying text). Images of poor or mediocre quality. with better examples on the Wiki already. Text reads as if it's publication is part of some sleazy chat up line by the photographer. Comprehensive violation of several guidelines in COM:PS, COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED etc. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nomination, this one is not a good image IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 20 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.

Not educationally useful Editor-1 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination -- all understood, but it's very low contrast and nothing on the ground is actually discernable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 20 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.

Files of 吳盈棻

[edit]

Out of scope: Commons is not a private travel photo album.

1971 images
* File:【新竹景點】數碼天空 (31811613753).jpg

--Kai3952 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination - also, these do not have any useful categories or file decriptions, so they are lost among our 40+ million images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 20 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.

Atlas Antigo files uploaded by Família paixão (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Need source and/or complete atlas publishing info to verify if {{PD-old}} indeed applies. I have my doubts...

P 1 9 9   14:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 20 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.

Files uploaded by Franzlombardi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Missing EXIF data, small resolution. Some files (Museo, Voliera) found elsewhere on web. See also his / her deleted files.

Hystrix (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 20 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.

Files uploaded by LauraGoldstein67 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolutions, missing metadata (except metadata indicating they were grabbed from social media sites), and the uploader's history. LauraGoldstein67 is a confirmed sockpuppet of Qwertywander1.

LX (talk, contribs) 19:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 20 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.

as per File:Puri Sea Beach Odisha.jpg, DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : montage missing links to images used from Wikimedia commons, rather small-sized format, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 03:30, 21 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.

out of scope, private holiday photo Rosenfeld~cswiki (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 07:58, 23 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.

File from Category:Personal files from panoramio. Looks too personal IMO. E4024 (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:39, 24 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.

Files uploaded by Mukhtarbaloch 2010 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Probably derivative works.

Yann (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:39, 24 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.

Files uploaded by Fretamoza (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Per COM:SCOPE: self-created artwork; unlikely to be used in a project.

Takeaway (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:39, 24 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.

4 files uploaded by Mastanineil (talk · contribs)

[edit]

4 rather small-sized format uplad, potentially personality right isusses, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ?

Roland zh (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:39, 24 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.

Out of scope: Commons is not a private travel photo album.--Kai3952 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:39, 24 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.

Images are from an ad or are obviously not taken by Flickr uploader

Elisfkc (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment A few of these images may fall under {{PD-1923}}. Others may fall under {{PD-US-1978-89}}, {{PD-1996}}, or {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}, but since the Flickr uploader did not upload the entire publication that the image is from, we cannot be sure that a copyright claim is made elsewhere in the publication. It is also likely that I missed some other files that should be nominated. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Withdraw this DR please. Far too many images above are public domain by age and clearly of educational value as well, for example the 1905 collection. Other images such as this drawing from an 1858 expedition are so clearly public domain and not an advert, nobody could possibly justify Elisfkc's mass DR as being appropriate or non-disruptive. It seems highly likely they did not bother to actually /look/ at the images before raising them for mass deletion on false grounds. -- (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@: While I understand your point, it seems silly to withdraw this DR. I did look over nearly all of them, but it is likely I failed to deselect some when there are more than 1300 files nominated. Out of the 1300 or so, there are maybe 50 that are obvious public domain. It would be easier to point out the ones that are public domain (I will happily support keeping these so-called obvious public domain images) and keep this DR so we can delete the rest. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a breathtakingly bad answer. You create a huge DR of 1300+ images, you have not looked through them properly, you admit it includes public domain images that should never be deleted, then you make it anybody else's problem to ensure a proper review. No, you don't get to do that. -- (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@: I just released that all of the ones that you uploaded shouldn't have been in here at all. Somehow, they got pulled into the Category:Images by John LLoyd, even though they have nothing to do with said Flickr uploader. I will withdraw those ones (if not right now, sometime later today). --Elisfkc (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw the DR please, then do the spadework properly, and consider creating a new one at that time. -- (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever of these files may be public domain should be listed with such a license rather than the one applied by John Lloyd at Flickr. If not, delete them. And better delete them quick, before they start seeing use in articles. To me the problem seems to be nearly all of the images thoughtlessly uploaded by Artix Kreiger 2. S/he should truly be made to understand that uploading files from Flickr requires a modicum of judgment and intelligence.
A number of files are also incorrectly included in this list, as they are clearly JL's own work (anything with Washington state license plates is probably fine). Here are a few that should be immediately removed from the discussion:
Thank you. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 19:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers: , I'm right here and I am a he. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As a whole; it's simply way too large to handle and contains obviously public domain works. And the majority of them are probably public domain, as US works that either lacked copyright (particularly ads) or renewal. The Alquist catalog, for instance, is PD-US-no renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep While I agree in sorting this all out and that the status of advertisement images is tricky to work with, this collective DR request is too big, potentially allowing for mistakes. I also feel that the three PD templates cover a large majority of these image files. On a side note, most all of these images are Flickr images that were uploaded to the Commons by various users. In that process, images have to be properly licensed (non-commercial use, etc.) or they will be blocked from upload in the first place; in other words, if it was licensing on the Flickr end, these files would not have collected to this point. --SteveCof00 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Artix Kreiger just popped up here (thanks!) - I feel that the responsibility to sort this mess out is his - there may be some problematic files uploaded by others but it looks as if the lion's share were uploaded by his bot only very recently. All the best to all involved, it feels that we are all working towards the same goal, we should remember that. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a bot. Its mass uploads through an automated tool. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the decision on this mass upload is, I'm ready, willing, and able to remove them from the "Unidentified automobiles" category, because the identities of these vehicles are so obvious. Is anyone else willing to do so? ----DanTD (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DanTD: , raises hand. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Community consensus. ~riley (talk) 03:44, 24 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.

Appear to be Flickrwashed images that are not original user's own (and no evidence of ownership or right to license them as CC-BY-SA).

Part of bulk import by now-banned user. It is quite possible that some of these are freely-usable for other reasons, but the onus is (or was) on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep them- and can explain why- to indicate why.

If the manner in which these images have been nominated (i.e. bulk nomination) is objected to, please explain why- and how it would be preferable to solve this problem instead- and close the nomination. (Reference to a generalised discussion or reference page where such issues have been already thrashed out and a community consensus arrived at would be useful if it already exists).

I could have nominated these separately, but as they're quite clearly related- part of the same bulk upload, by the same bulk uploader, of images by the same Flickr user, and all nominated for the same reason- doing so puts an asymmetrical load on us (versus the (lack of) effort by the bulk uploader who didn't bother to check properly in the first place) I felt it was excessive to nominate each separately.

Edit; I wasn't aware of this, but I now notice that there has been a previous nomination for uploads by this user.

Ubcule (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those in use deserve to be examined more fully than deleting on sus.
Checking up, there only seem to be 3 of these anyway:
File Usage
File:1950 Gutbrod Superior Kleinwagen (5466224677).jpg 1
File:1952 Lloyd (31792496790).jpg 1
File:1958-59 Lloyd LT600 extended station wagon (21455621071).jpg 1
-- (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - Flicrkwashing concern appears valid. The files that are in use are used trivially (in galleries), but I reviewed them per Fae's request. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Continuation of my previous nomination(*) of images that are under dispute because they appear to be scans of magazines and brochures (i.e. not Lloyd's own work as claimed). Same rationale applies:-

"Appear to be Flickrwashed images that are not original user's own (and no evidence of ownership or right to license them as CC-BY-SA)."
"Part of bulk import by now-banned user. It is quite possible that some of these are freely-usable for other reasons, but the onus is (or was) on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep them- and can explain why- to indicate why."
"I could have nominated these separately, but as they're quite clearly related- part of the same bulk upload, by the same bulk uploader, of images by the same Flickr user, and all nominated for the same reason- doing so puts an asymmetrical load on us (versus the (lack of) effort by the bulk uploader who didn't bother to check properly in the first place) I felt it was excessive to nominate each separately."

This nomination includes a few images "traced" by the author (i.e. derivative), but vast bulk are still brochures/magazine scans.

Some images below were included in an earlier deletion request from Elisfkc (talk · contribs) in 2018 and not deleted then. My understanding is they were retained then due to that nomination (not mine) being too broad and closed early, not because they had necessarily been deemed legitimate. (If ~riley (talk · contribs) (who closed that request) wants to confirm this, that would be great).

(*) Note: I'd intentionally not added all images under dispute then as I'd wanted to be sure that bulk request was acceptable in that case.

Ubcule (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these, File:Lloyd 350 (2198862646).jpg (1937), may be old enough to keep as PD. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}
These mass DRs suppress a lot of good content. Any US published adverts before 1977 should be removed from this list. -- (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@: - I already made clear why I felt a bulk nomination was justified. It's completely unreasonable to expect an asymmetric effort on our side in response to a quick-and-dirty bulk upload because the orignal uploader (who the onus was on) didn't bother to correctly check and indicate the license in the first place.
You're an experienced editor, and I assume I don't need to explain why Commons operates on the basis of "required to explain why free in the first place" rather than "assumed free and kept until proven otherwise".
You complain about this bulk nomination, but I see no evidence that you (or anyone else) made the effort to do any of this beforehand. Which is essentially my point.
As I said, "it is quite possible that some of these are freely-usable for other reasons, but the onus is (or was) on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep them to indicate why."
"Any US published adverts before 1977 should be removed from this list."
You are welcome to do so if you're willing to put the effort in to confirm that and to label them correctly as such. Thank you,
Ubcule (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The example file has been hosted since 2018. It is public domain. It should not be deleted.
There are high risk copyvios, zero risk and very low risk. Nobody is going to lose an eye by failing to delete everything on this zero to very low risk list before a volunteer gets around to looking at them. A proportionate approach does not invalidate precautionary principle it just makes it pragmatic. -- (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@: "Nobody is going to lose an eye". That argument could apply to pretty much everything here, so... your point is?
This has the ring of the "oh, the copyright owner probably won't care about it" attitude. Towards which our response is essentially, "yes, but we do".
You're probably more experienced with knowing what is and isn't PD than I am. But since neither you nor anyone else bothered to indicate that reasoning on those images in the first place, this wasn't clear. As I said, you're welcome to put the effort into fixing this if you wish, but we're not operating on the basis of "assumed free until proven otherwise".
I'll also draw your attention to the fact that the images were nominated for deletion (i.e. prior discussion) rather than marked as copyvios for instant deletion. Again, this gives you the opportunity to fix things up if you feel strongly about it.
Ubcule (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need a different process than DR for situations like this? Something, with a noticeboard, where such batches can be listed for review, rather than for immediate deletion? I'm reminded of some railway batch uploads also from Artix Krieger where we had to do something similar, and fortunately avoided a pointless DR. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: The problem with bulk uploads is that if they're done sloppily (i.e. with the uploader not doing their due diligence in the first place) they have the potential to require a hugely asymmetric effort from others to fix.
I intentionally didn't nominate all the images last time because I wasn't 100% sure that a DR was the ideal solution. Since everyone seemed to consider that broadly acceptable, and no-one else suggested a better way, I finished it off properly this time round.
But ultimately, if we're going to allow bulk uploads, there probably *should* be ways more suited to dealing with them without an asymmetry of effort on our part.
It's just that I wasn't aware of such a solution at present; if there is, no-one's suggested it so far. Ubcule (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 "Any US published adverts before 1977 should be removed from this list. / {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}" Came across here because of the Simca-Fulgur pics. Compare this story. Best --Tom (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep for American ads. Pretty much all of these American ads have no notice, making it PD. It seems these Commons "copyright police" do a lot more harm than good, nitpicking files and mixing in PD photos, wasting others' time and such. This keeps going on and on and hasn't been slowing down at all. Enough already. CutlassCiera 18:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass: - If you're asserting that they're public domain for X, Y or Z reason, then label them as such rather than not bothering, then complaining here. That's how Commons is supposed to work. End of story. We're not required to "know" why an incorrectly-labelled image is likely public domain if the uploader, yourself or others (who want to keep them) haven't even bothered to explain why.
I waited a year after the previous nomination, which must would have drawn this user's uploads to peoples' attention. A year in which no-one (yourself included) did anything to fix the remaining images... and yet you're calling people like me the "copyright police"?
(See also my reply to Fæ below.) Ubcule (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as default. Another sloppy DR has wasted volunteer time. If the nominator is struggling to create a DR that can restrict itself to copyright violations but is creating unnecessary long lists which randomly include public domain content, they need to stop. No more of this time sink please, it's not hard to filter for blatant copyvios, it's actually pretty easy for anyone prepared to use standard search and VFC. Blanket huge DRs are damaging and easily avoided. Note this is the fourth time some of these same files have been put up for deletion in a massive DR. The files below need extra careful attention as they are in use.
# File Usage Non-core
1 1950 at LeMans (1).jpg 3
2 1950s Thomas Built Buses model line illustration.jpg 2
3 1957 Chevrolet school bus model line.jpg 1
4 1969 Barracuda Junior (29737043853).jpg 1
5 Brazilian Chevrolet 1985 Double Cabin (4183147558).jpg 1
6 Datsun (8170412687).jpg 1
7 Dodge by Volkswagen (7611901084).jpg 1
8 Ford Pampa (4200743891).jpg 2
9 January 1953 Lloyd Press Photo (4284981927).jpg 1
10 January 1953 Lloyd Press Photo (4285725474).jpg 1
11 JEEP Dispatcher assembly line (5453869248).jpg 1
12 Leukoplastbomber (23623345841).jpg 1
13 Lloyd 350 (2198862646).jpg 2
14 Opel Junior.jpg 7
15 Postwar Holden Built Cars (3152885718).jpg 2
16 Simca Fulgur 1958 (3593990695).jpg 2 1
17 Spatz Victoria in USA (13968097278).jpg 1
18 Suzulight 1959 (5143706221).jpg 1
19 Voisin Biscooter (5533425711).jpg 1
20 Zündapp Janus (2306282524).jpg 2

-- (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@: - The only "sloppy" thing here was the uploader's bulk importation of images without due care in the first place and the general "oh, it'll do" attitude.
Commons' policy is not "upload anything of dubious copyright status then expect someone else to sort out the mess later".
I intentionally nominated the images collectively as it was clear the entire upload was questionable. Nominating individually would have created a huge number of requests. (And I suspect would not have been appreciated by others, least of all yourself.)
There has to be a line drawn where a sloppy bulk upload done with little effort- which would otherwise require a hugely asymmetric amount of work to fix- has to be treated in a similar manner.
There's no onus on anybody to carry out that work, regardless... at least, not unless that other person is the one fighting to have them kept, as you are.
If you disagreed and wanted to keep the remainder of this user's images, you had the opportunity to correctly label them after each of the previous two nominations. You're claiming they're public domain? Good. Why haven't you put in the (not unreasonable) effort it would have taken to label them as such?
You've criticised me despite the fact I waited a whole year before my second nomination of the remainder of the images. A year in which nothing happened.
It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it, or maybe you just don't care about "sloppily" labelled uploads?
Ubcule (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: Delete all. To check all images by hand loads too much work on our limited resources. I consider the damage done by unlawfully uploaded images, inlcuding the risk of fines or penalties for outside use of the material larger then the damage that some articles are devoid of an image. In addition, we have a policy for this: COM:PRP. Images may be deleted where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file. Because of the behavior of the uploader, this doubt is present. Elly (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: most of them per nomination, except for one that had been previously kept as PD-no notice and a few that seemed to be actually scans of the Flickr user's own old photographs. --Rosenzweig τ 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Muhammad Shuja Azhar (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope - not educationally useful (unused personal images of uploader).

hiàn 22:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:48, 24 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.

Files uploaded by MegaAselos (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These logos seem to go beyond “simple geometric shapes” and across the threshold of originality.

Ytoyoda (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 03:48, 24 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.

Superseded jpg version of same logo by png file Meiloorun (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:31, 27 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.

It is improbable, that Stefan Palčo is the copyright owner, so that the licence may invalid, COM:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:31, 27 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.

This file was initially tagged by Arbalete as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: duplicates File:Berlin (Ost) - Obusnetz - Stand 1961+.png Didym (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: not exact duplicate. Ruthven (msg) 23:32, 27 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.

Map with mistakes, subtituted by the correct map at File:Berlin (Ost) - Obusnetz - Stand 1961+.png Arbalete (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Thuresson (talk) 20:26, 27 March 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.

low quality graphic of exposed viscera, not useful for anatomy education Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion: it's an artistic illustration. Can be used. Ruthven (msg) 23:32, 27 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.

Wrong File 2001:8003:7494:A200:7869:E06E:6A88:A6B6 05:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Commons is not an amateur porn site. Ruthven (msg) 23:32, 27 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.

It's hard to see the purpose of the picture - and without face Wildone.dk (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:33, 27 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.

It's hard to see the purpose of the picture - and without face - and very small picture Wildone.dk (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: not small. Ruthven (msg) 23:34, 27 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.

This file was initially tagged by EurekaLott as no source (No source since) (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Applies to File:Гуннар Каасен вместе с псами на туре по Америке.jpg. -- (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Series of photographs for press. No named photographer, so PD by age. -- (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The images were uploaded without a source or an author. Since they're images of the United States taken between 1925 and 1927, I don't see how we can keep them without more information. - Eureka Lott 06:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both no copyright notice and no renewal. -- (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But how can we say that if we don't know the source or author? - Eureka Lott 14:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link added to a site where the image is used and gives some more context.
As described, this particular image is certain to be a press photo taken on the Alameda while docked in Seattle shortly before shooting Sol Lesser's film. The photographer remains unknown.
{{PD-US-no renewal}} still seems a conservative choice of release. -- (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Fae. Ruthven (msg) 23:35, 27 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.

Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:36, 27 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.

flickr account contains possibly copyvio photo.. Saqib (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:36, 27 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.

The photo is not own work. It can easily be in public domain due to age, if publication data is given. Source country is India. Taivo (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per {{PD-India-photo-1958}}. Ruthven (msg) 23:40, 27 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.

Not a fleuron. Superseded by the full map, available at File:1797 chart of Marquesas by James Wilson explorer.jpg -- Deadstar (msg) 12:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Fae, I forgot about that one. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 23:40, 27 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.

Not a fleuron, but a star denoting NSEW on a map. Map like the one File:1797 chart of Marquesas by James Wilson explorer.jpg. I don't think we need to keep this. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:41, 27 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.

Not a fleuron. I uploaded the map that this is part of File:1799_published_Gambier_Island_map_by_James_Duff.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:41, 27 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.

Photo of a screen, likely copyvio ed g2stalk 13:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:41, 27 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.

本图像非常模糊,页面/分类中已有高质量的图片可用 Tyg728 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:41, 27 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.

本图像非常模糊,页面/分类中已有高质量的图片可用 Tyg728 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:41, 27 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.

本图像非常模糊,没有充分展示图片的主题。页面/分类中已有高质量的图片可用 Tyg728 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:41, 27 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.

Unused (only in a sandbox) out of scope personal image. COM:INUSE is not valid for this case. E4024 (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:41, 27 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.

Unused (only in an unrelated user page) out of scope personal image. COM:INUSE is not valid for this case. E4024 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:42, 27 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.

The location is uncertain. The Arlanda Express does not stop at Arlanda Central Station, only Arlanda North and South. It does stop at Stockholm Central Station but (a) this doesn't look like that station and (b) why would the display there show Stockholm as a destination. A request for clarification has been on the talk page for four months without any response. The image is rather burred, and probably not worth any further effort of trying to track down its location. Chris j wood (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy/paste the late answer I made on the discussion of the file : Completely missed that, sorry. I'm not very active anymore. The picture has been taken on track 4 or 5, here : Arlanda Express, centralstation, 2016 - 4.jpg. Might have done a mistake regarding the name of the station, sorry about that, that's the station of the terminal 2&3 if I remember correctly. Sorry about the delay of answer... Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 13:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, rename it if necessary. Ruthven (msg) 23:42, 27 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.

Auteur : philippe Garo, autorisaton du photographe nécessaire, voir Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:43, 27 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.

Auteur : Nebu.fr (photographe professionel), autorisation nécessaire, voir Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:43, 27 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.

Auteur : Nebu.fr (photographe professionel), autorisation nécessaire, voir Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:43, 27 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.

Image déjà supprimée, une fois voir Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chuamiens et violation des droits d'auteurs Shev123 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: authorisation par Nebu.fr nécessaire. Ruthven (msg) 23:43, 27 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.

Image déjà supprimée une fois, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chuamiens, probablement pas un travail personnel et il faut l'autorisation de l'auteur Shev123 (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:43, 27 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.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVmJ7T0UQAIfLqy.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EugeneZelenko: I know David Neal personally. He's the founder of "WorkingJournalistPress.com". I tells me that this image came from a single frame of a high definition video which he took, which explains why it is missing EXIF -- and also establishes his ownership. He also said he placed that image where EugeneZelenko found it. He also used it more recently at 'Net Neutrality' bill introduced in Kansas House. I encouraged him to post it to Wikimedia Commons so I could use it in a Wikinews article. After he did that, I've gotten distracted doing other things and have not yet drafted the Wikinews article that would use this image. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask video copyrights holder to send permission to Commons:OTRS (example: Commons:Email templates). Then you could ask help on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard with permission review. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVmJ7T0UQAIfLqy.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response from copyright holder: I am the Senior Editor of WorkingJournalistPress.com and a principal owner of Working Journalist Press, LLC a Kansas LLC, which is the owner of the public policy news site WorkingJournalistPress.com. I am the owner of the copyright for this image which is made from an individual frame of a video that I personally recorded at the Kansas State Capitol during an interview on January 9, 2018. I am an accredited journalist at the Kansas State Capitol.
The lack of an EXIF and smaller resolution is because the image is an individual frame of a video rather than a high resolution still photograph. The image has been used in an article published on WorkingJournalistPress.com at the following link: http://www.workingjournalistpress.com/articles/180207/Net-neutrality-bill-introduced-in-Kansas-House.php.
The Google Images link (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVmJ7T0UQAIfLqy.jpg) that you cite is from the Twitter account of the Working Journalist Press that I personally posted. The specific Tweet is at https://twitter.com/WJ_Press/status/961952353875300352.
There are several assumptions that have been made here in flagging this image for deletion that should possibly be rethought, including the fact that the lack of an EXIF and a smaller resolution is somehow proof of the lack of origination. We often use frames from video as images because their resolution is fine for web publication.
Secondly, using some image matching site that locates the same image and refers to a low level URL for the image file on Google Images is also not a good form of 'proof' either, particularly if the URL begins with 'https://pbs.twimg.com/media'. That URL stub is an indicator for the media repository for Twitter. Problem is you can't tell from the Google Image URL from which actual Tweet the image originally comes from. I have supplied that here.
This first experience uploading an image to Wikimedia Commons and then having to respond to the subsequent deletion request has taken at least 45 minutes out of my day. As a small news organization with thousands of potential donations that we could make to Wikimedia Commons, we certainly can't afford to take this kind of time each time we upload an image. We uploaded this image at the request of one of your contributing authors so he could have an image for an article he was updating, fyi.David Neal (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; OTRS authorisation needed from the author. We cannot accept an authorisation written by an unverified account, sorry. Ruthven (msg) 23:45, 27 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.

Historical painting. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:44, 27 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.

Copyrighted book cover. Gikü (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:46, 27 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.

Copyrighted book cover. Gikü (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:46, 27 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.

(c) Valoria Films, any permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep @Patrick Rogel Photo created in Italy, before 1976 -> PD-Italy. See our talk here ! - Groupir ! (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Le copyright est invalide, la photo étant désormais tombée dans le domaine public en Italie. - Groupir ! (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Valoria Films is not an Italian company but a French one : any reason for Italian law to apply. Besides, can you explain how a photo published 2016 in a French magazine is a proof that it has been first published (if ever) in Italy ? Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Je n'ai jamais dit que Valoria était une compagnie italienne ! De toutes façons, ces lois italiennes s'appliquent indépendamment de la nationalité du photographe ou de l'agence, du moment que la photographie a été prise en Italie, comme expliqué par @Ruthven ici. Et c'est le fait qu'elle ait été crée en Italie qui importe, pas qu'elle y ait été publiée ! - Groupir ! (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh non justement, publiée : COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Il est dit que le pays d'origine est généralement celui où la photographie a été publiée, pas dans tous les cas. Pour cette photographie, il est évident que, ayant été prise en Italie, son pays d'origine est l'Italie ! - Groupir ! (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Le droit français doit être aussi pris en considération pour cette photo, car publiée en France pour la première fois (le film étant français). Ruthven (msg) 23:48, 27 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.

Image not taken by Flickr uploader Elisfkc (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:48, 27 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.

This file was initially tagged by Diannaa as no permission (No permission since). Simple logo? Hystrix (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The museum is in the United Kingdom, which has a pretty strict threshold of originality. I've uploaded a version from the museum website for fair use on en.wiki. Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 23:49, 27 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.

DR started to verify claimed 'own work': rather small-sized format, one-file-upload, potentially personality right isusses, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no proofs of copyvio. Ruthven (msg) 23:49, 27 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.

as per File:Puri beach banner.jpg, DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : rather small-sized format, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: not EDUSE. Ruthven (msg) 23:49, 27 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.

Copyright violation Michał Sobkowski (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 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.

Copyright violation Michał Sobkowski (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 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.

Copyright violation Michał Sobkowski (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 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.

Copyright violation Michał Sobkowski (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 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.

Copyright violation Michał Sobkowski (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 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.

Copyright violation Michał Sobkowski (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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 Michał Sobkowski (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 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.

Copyright violation Michał Sobkowski (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 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.

This picture is personnal and represent a member of my family. It was published without any consent whereas I am the copyright owner. We ask you please to delete it from wikipedia. Sofiaaspe (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is not a valid reason for asking for deletion. --Shev123 (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this could mean "copyright owner requests deletion of his/her image uploaded by another unauthorised person without consent" but it could equally be "random family member requests deletion of photo correctly uploaded and licensed by copyright owner".  Keep per lack of clear rationale. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 23:50, 27 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.

Publication of a private picture of a member of my family without consent of the subject and the author. Infringment of the photographer right on its picture. 85bakerstreet (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. --Shev123 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why the fact that this private picture was illegaly published without any consent of the photographer is not considered as "as valid reason for deletion" ? It is an intellectual property infringement punishable by law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85bakerstreet2 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 April 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Delete Legally valid. Deletion. --Jamespaultaa

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fotoqualität ungenügend Nord-Biedermeier (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:52, 27 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.

Self-promo: used for an enwiki article that apparently got deleted four times. Mahir256 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:56, 27 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.

This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
+7days to correct add missing informations. Wdwd (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Public domain

For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights.
Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings.
Zenawiki (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain
Public domain
The country of origin of this photograph is Italy. It is in the public domain there because its copyright term has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products (Art. 87). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Photographs that are "intellectual work with creative characteristics" are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are protected for a period of 20 years from creation.
Italy
Italy
This may not apply in countries that don't apply the rule of the shorter term to works from Italy. In particular, these are in the public domain in the United States only if:

العربية  català  Deutsch  English  español  français  magyar  italiano  日本語  македонски  português  русский  sicilianu  中文  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  中文(臺灣)  +/−

Zenawiki (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.


You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.
This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.
Zenawiki (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Zenawik. Ruthven (msg) 23:52, 27 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.

out of scope, poor quality Joschi71 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 23:53, 27 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.

out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 23:53, 27 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.

out of scope, poor quality Joschi71 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 23:53, 27 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.

Self promotion of non notorious person Stegop (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:53, 27 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.

Work of an artist who died in 1987, autorization needed, see Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:54, 27 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.

Copyrighted work by Raquel Levy (d. 2014), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:54, 27 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.

Similar to https://www.facebook.com/micburnermusic/photos/a.710839672263985.1073741825.710833265597959/1804243499590258/?type=1&theater, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:56, 27 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.

likely copyvio.. the user has uploaded one copyvio already.. Flickr account has only 2 photos.. This user has been socking on EN WP... Saqib (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the same basis as Saqib. acc only has 2 photos, copyvio all over it

Deleted: per discussion. Ed (Edgar181) 20:50, 5 March 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.

Although I could not find it in the internet, the title on the image suggests it may be a press item. What do others think? E4024 (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:18, 19 March 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.

The source does not specify the copyrightstatus as BY-SA Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:19, 19 March 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.

Despite "own work", claim user now says it was sent to her by the company, but no OTRS ticket, see edit here. Jimfbleak (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:19, 19 March 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.

Out of scope - and used only for a copyvio page on enwiki Home Lander (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:21, 19 March 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.

2 Files uploaded by SACHIN V PATIL (talk · contribs)

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : two rather small-sized format upload, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ?

Roland zh (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination copyvios. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:23, 19 March 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.

There is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for monuments. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:23, 19 March 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.

There is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for monuments. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:24, 19 March 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.

There is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for monuments. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:24, 19 March 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.

Probably too unclear to be educationally usable. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:25, 19 March 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.

Files uploaded by Sumedha 11 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Derivative works of copyrighted broadcasts. See Andy Samberg on Jimmy Kimmel Live and Melissa Fumero on the Steve Harvey Show.

Ytoyoda (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:26, 19 March 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.

Non relevant person trying to promote herself Stego (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:26, 19 March 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.

out of scope, unused personal image Migebert (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:26, 19 March 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.

This file was initially tagged by Secondarywaltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not "Own work". Metadata shows Author and Copyright holder as Marco Grob Photography, Inc.
+7 days for sending permission via OTRS. See file discussion page. Wdwd (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination (nothing at OTRS). --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:28, 19 March 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.

Shameful dx 41.190.30.77 22:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:28, 19 March 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.

Copy of https://www.facebook.com/ericpoulliat/photos/a.1163248727117587.1073741826.1163244640451329/1163248733784253/?type=3&theater Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:29, 19 March 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.

Copyrighted work by Raquel Levy (d. 2014), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:29, 19 March 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.

The file text states that the copyright holder gave permission for "use on Wikipedia", which is not permission for a free license release. Permission is claimed to be "verbal" rather than documented via OTRS, so there is no way to tell if the copyright holder is allowing a free license release or just Wikipedia use. Seraphimblade (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:29, 19 March 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.

While the periodical has been published under the CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO license, but Page 3 reads that "the present license applies exclusively to the texts. For the use of images, prior permission shall be requested." 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:31, 19 March 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.

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. 3d-логотип канала ТНТ, изначально несвободное изображение, см. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:ТНТ_logo_2017.png. Dogad75 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 20:10, 24 March 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.

Still photography (and not film frames) by Jean-Pierre Bonnotte (b. 1938) for Gamma-Rapho-Keystone. Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep @Patrick Rogel Photo created in Italy, before 1976 so PD-Italy applies. See our talk here ! - Groupir ! (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. Après examen attentif des clauses et spécificités du droit italien en la matière, cette photo répond aux critères requis. Tisourcier (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Sealle (talk) 20:11, 24 March 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.

Identiek aan Zelfportret-02a.jpg Marianne Cornelissen-Kuyt (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 11:14, 25 March 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.

Out of scope. Poor quality image, illustrating nothing very well. Themightyquill (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 25 March 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.

Probably copyright violation with File:TV-Serie De Luizenmoeder.webm a kind of trailer of a tv-soap, see also talkpage on Dutch Wikipedia (here). Happytravels (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Question If I get the gist of the Dutch discussion (now archived) correctly, this video clip was put on Youtube under a CC-BY license by the TV channel DWDD (their official Youtube channel), but contains also material that is not made by DWDD and which they're supposedly not authorized to put under CC-BY? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see it... "DWDD" is not a TV channel, but a talk show on Dutch television, and this is a video where they talk about a TV series, and show excerpts of this TV series which, however, they have no rights to release under CC-BY? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 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.

This file was initially tagged by E4024 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://2015.hitpoint.tracon.fi/fi/goh
Converted by me to DR, as external hit is not convincing enough. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the image was obviously published earlier at https://2015.hitpoint.tracon.fi/media/uploads/2015/10/21/goh_miska.png than it was uploaded to Commons, the png-version is far smaller (320 x 420 pix) than our version (1362 x 1896 pix). Also, the username of the uploader suggests that he/she is identical to the depicted person. All his other uploads also show the same person. Anyway, I've now contacted the depicted person via his website. --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing User:Miskafredman has done here or in WPs is uploading three images, and probably not the best of them. I doubt this user has anything to do with the real person. IMHO they took all three files from internet: Twitter, etc. --E4024 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The file in question seems to be a cropped version of File:Miska Fredman.jpg, which does appear to be the original version. The same resolution pops up a few times in Category:Taken with Samsung Galaxy Note 3 at least. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: OTRS was added. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:25, 27 March 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.

Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metadata, and the uploader's history. Jalal567 is a confirmed sockpuppet of Qwertywander1. LX (talk, contribs) 19:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LX: not to argue against your conclusion, but which metadata do you expect to see in a PNG file? And which metadata from a PNG can be shown by MediaWiki at all? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PNGs can certainly carry metadata. At least some of it can be shown by MediaWiki. For example, see File:RGBA Logo Circle-Variable Transparency-Large.png #metadata. This image has no metadata of any type recognised by exiv2. That said, it's fairly common to see PNGs without metadata.
I suppose the issue is rather that PNG is an odd choice of file format for a photo like this. We tend to see it used by copyright violators for screenshots of non-free content or to get rid of metadata. A legitimate use of PNG for photographic content would be to avoid lossy compression for high-quality archival versions, but that's obviously not been the priority here. LX (talk, contribs) 20:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Sealle (talk) 17:33, 27 March 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.

Copyrighted work by Raquel Levy (d. 2014), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:54, 27 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.

Copyrighted work by Raquel Levy (d. 2014), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:54, 27 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.

Copyrighted work by Raquel Levy (d. 2014), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:54, 27 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.

Copyrighted work by Raquel Levy (d. 2014), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:54, 27 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.

Copyrighted work by Raquel Levy (d. 2014), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:54, 27 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.

Copyrighted work by Raquel Levy (d. 2014), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 23:54, 27 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.

This image has copyright VDu (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Why the umage has copyright, provide the source please --Ezarateesteban 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: 1) This is an unused image whose deletion was requested by the uploader shortly after upload; deletion is allowed as a courtesy. 2) This is a professional quality image of a purportedly notable person with low resolution and no camera EXIF; in the aggregate, these are often signs of a copyvio. --Эlcobbola talk 14:35, 28 March 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.

This file is personal file. プログラマリオ (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

日本語で宜しいでしょうか。 私的な画像のアップロードが禁止されているのならば、利用規約に従って削除いたします。ご指摘有難うございます。 スズリ 2018年2月24日 21:38 (UTC)


Kept: Per COM:INUSE, the uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project. This image is in use on the ja.wiki user page of an editor who appears to be in good standing. --Эlcobbola talk 14:51, 28 March 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.

If image from Life Magazine, any reason for Italian law to apply. Anyway any evidence that photo has been first published in Italy. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please note that any photo from that period appears on Commons. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Photo created in Italy, before 1976 so PD-Italy applies. @Patrick Rogel: see our talk here ! - Groupir ! (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)- Groupir ! (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Après examen attentif des clauses et spécificités du droit italien en la matière, cette photo répond aux critères requis. Tisourcier (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The keep comments are non-responsive to the concern, which is valid. The source provides no indication that this image was created (or first published) in Italy. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, but the onus is on those arguing for the file to be retained to provide that evidence. --Эlcobbola talk 14:45, 28 March 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.

white space trimmed at File:Gerard ter Borch - Three Men in a Tavern, One taking Snuff L08033-52-lr-1 (cropped).jpg Jane023 (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, Redundant/bad quality. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:55, 29 March 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.

Já há a versão .svg do mesmo arquivo e todas as ligações para artigos já estão com o novo arquivo. Roni Jorge Junior (MSG) 03:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 02:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]