Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/10/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_MBT_Logol.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(BBA5350).jpg){kind=link}
_completed_acceptance_trials.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
User is not the original photographer. He stole it from my Flickr gallery and is claiming it as his own work. I am the original photographer, and the photo was obtained from here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/magnetboy1/24951105683/in/photolist-E1QWri. Mark david777 (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 06:55, 9 Oktober 2018 UTC: Copyright violation: https://www.flickr.com/photos/magnetboy1/24951105683/in/photolist-E1QWri --Krdbot 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Skladnev00 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Logo of uk:Львівська національна академія мистецтв. Львівська національна академія мистецтв is State institution in Ukraine. Відповідно до статті 10 Закону України про авторське право і суміжні права ця робота знаходиться в суспільному надбанні: ... (г) державні символи України, державні нагороди; символи і знаки органів державної влади, Збройних Сил України та інших військових формувань; символіка територіальних громад; символи та знаки підприємств, установ та організацій ((d) State symbols of Ukraine, government awards; symbols and signs of government authorities, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations; symbols of territorial communities; symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations); This logo is — символи та знаки підприємств, установ та організацій {{PD-UA-exempt}} type=logos and emblems.- Maybe it's not true: Creation Time, Source and Author. But the logo is in the public domain. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept, I withdraw the request and try to fix the license. Taivo (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source link is absent, so that license cannot be verified. Jcb (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Jcb, I found the source: http://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2018/10/09/vijskovosluzhbovczi-vsp-zs-ukraini-zdijsnyuyut-patrulyuvannya-u-prileglih-do-nadzvichajnoi-podii-naselenih-punktah/ There is CC BY 4.0 license. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Jcb (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --Jcb (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
herkenbaar persoon - was niet de bedoeling Queeste (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Please consider adding {{SD|G7}} to the file page for future cases. --4nn1l2 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This video is not free. As the source says: "AdRev for a 3rd Party (on behalf of Gene Michael Productions, BMI (Gene Michael Productions)); AdRev Publishing". Leoboudv (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake.--Mauricio C. (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy-closed per nomination and uploader's consent. --Túrelio (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wpgroupslink (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Very small, without EXIF, photo showing an interview. Doubtfull to be an own work. C messier (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 23:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Copyvio https://www.doctorinsta.com/news.php John from Idegon (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: was deleted before. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unknown person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 07:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – This person is Randeep Hooda, who is an Indian actor. But the pic is copyrighted, so I've CSDed it. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted by another admin as a copyvio,. --jdx Re: 05:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, can be promotional. Ahmadtalk 09:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
cette photo n'est pas adapté Ousslama (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep Argument (French for "This picture is not adapted") is not an argument for deletion. Moumou82 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Created this one and realized there exists a town with the same name in Germany so I had to be more specific.
Done Klaas `Z4␟` V: 05:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 02:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Low quality image of shopfronts for companies of no encyclopaedic value + COM:NOTUSED Zenwort (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete per COM:FOP#Cameroon. clpo13(talk) 16:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Was originally posted to Flickr but now it seems to be taken down. FitIndia Talk 06:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy close as bad faith/dumb nomination, colorized version of an existing image here with proper Flickr review. --Denniss (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy close as a revenge nom: OP tried to tag it as a copyvio based on a website using it three years after it was made, while crediting wp for the image, and then pulled this crap when I reverted the tagging and explained why on my talk. MjolnirPants (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. FitIndia Talk 11:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
exchange Qqhhss (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio anyway. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata. Out of project scope, copyright violation is possible too. Taivo (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, hoax categories, out of project scope. Derivative work of painting and source country is unknown, maybe the photo violates painter's copyright. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
i dont own the photo and uploaded wrong one by accident Fionasoderlund (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Seven Pandas (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I want to delete this because I uploded mistakenly and useless. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:569:7097:5C00:80E5:8042:D88:4264 (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Can't see a use for it plus the blurred mouth in photo is an issue. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Uploaded only for promotion. Godric ki Kothritalk to me 10:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused selfie of unidentified person with no educational value. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Voice of Clam First of all the person is not the subject of the picture but the garden, and if the person was the subject of the picture i would have written his name. Secondly the educational value of the image is in the garden and not in the person and of course you can not delete every picture because a person appeared in it. --Ahmed el shimi (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't consider the garden to be the subject of the photo, and even if it is, it's not a very good example of one. Just an overgrown yard with a concrete wall. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused selfie of unidentified person with no educational value. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused selfie of unidentified person with no educational value. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
per COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Personal/Private photo(s). Also reupload. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 06:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused selfie of unidentified person with no educational value. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Useless with the current amount of information. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Bad quality. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Personal photo. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Provirus58 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashu Tosh zeff 2 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
- File:Ashutoah zeff.jpg
- File:Ashutosh zeff 786.jpg
- File:Ashutosh zeff 0.jpg
- File:Ashutosh zeff.jpg
- File:Ashutosh zeff $.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MathewInyene (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HadenSeneyBeatz1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
- File:HadenSeneyBeatz Un-Hooded.jpg
- File:HadenSeneyBeatz Hoodie Photo.jpg
- File:Hadenseneybeatz face.jpg
- File:HadenSeneybeatz hooded.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Felix.villas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope, commons is not a photo album
Gbawden (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gaddi Lenders (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kundanraj729 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo, out of scope, commons is not a photo album
Gbawden (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lesvito SA (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
TOO? — regards, Revi 14:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Oneperson100200300400500 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks like this is scanned from some sort pf promotional literature? B (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons is not a private photo album. No educational value. + COM:NOTUSED Zenwort (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep good quality stock photograph. Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep in scope. --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Cleatly in scope and high educational value. Tm (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
personal artwork : likely out of scope Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
unused personal image+ small size without EXIFs : unlikely to be own work Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obvious derivative work Discasto talk 20:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:PENIS Ronhjones (Talk) 21:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- And COM:UPOL for good measure. GMGtalk 18:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kashi sohail Nazir (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope personal file with little encyclopedic information. Only files user has uploaded.
- File:Kashi sohail coloure full.png
- File:Kashi sohail 4.png
- File:Kashi sohail youtubrr.png
- File:Kashi sohail 3.png
- File:Kashi sohail Nazir.png
- File:Kashi sohail college time.png
- File:Kashi sohail 2.png
- File:Kashi sohail.png
- File:Abbottabad.png
Kalbbes (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Blatantly derogatory racist content. Uploader unlikely owner. Larger images readily found on the web: Google search on image archive.4plebs.org has been down since Oct 6. Jim1138 (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete strong vote for delete. Isn't there an expedited deletion process?Seven Pandas (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Aside from likely copyright issues, I cannot see education value in this. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Text is too small to be readable. Out of project scope due to quality. Taivo (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ShimaaSleem (talk · contribs)
[edit]small sizes without EXIFs : unlikely to be own work
- File:Screen696x696.jpg
- File:Screen696x696 (5).jpg
- File:Screen696x696 (2).jpg
- File:Screen696x696 (1).jpg
- File:Screen696x696 (4).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I don't think the logo is below the threshold of originality, we need a permission from the copyright holder Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:SELFIE —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) ping me plz 02:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Human penis
[edit]unused and unoriginal male genitalia pictures COM:PORN
- File:Aging Penis and Testicles 01.jpg
- File:Aging Penis and Testicles 02.jpg
- File:Asian T Penis.jpg
- File:Average flaccid uncircumcised penis.jpg
- File:Beschnitter Penis.jpg
- File:Calmoon.JPG
- File:Cock oldman.jpg
- File:Colombi.JPG
- File:Erection 勃起 2014-04-11 12-36.jpg
- File:Evolucion vello pubico .jpg
- File:Example of Monorchism.jpg
- File:Fallus mature man.jpg
—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) ping me plz 02:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, low quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) ping me plz 02:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, low quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Very low resolution. Useless. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Seven Pandas (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by N.K.MONDAL (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo-album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by N.K.MONDAL (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo. Out of project scope.
~Moheen (keep talking) 05:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
spam, out of scope Nolispanmo 09:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Culture of Iran
[edit]ኢራን — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culture of Iran (talk • contribs) 07:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Low res image of shopfronts of companies with no ovious educational value. + COM:NOTSUED Zenwort (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep there is definitely educational value in a photo of a typical street scene from Cameroon. The better question is whether it's okay by COM:FOP#Cameroon. In my opinion, it's fine because it's not focused on any particular work of art or architecture. Any individual building in this photo that's still copyrighted is de minimis. clpo13(talk) 16:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep COM:DM, no issues here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader on flickr not author of this image SecretName101 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:PORN —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) ping me plz 02:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- File:Average flaccid uncircumcised penis.jpg
- File:Flaccid Uncircumcised Penis Indian.jpg
- File:Hairy Scrotum.jpg
- File:Flaccid penis with the foreskin retracted.jpg
- File:Indian Scrotum showing testicles.jpg
- File:Erect Penis with Foreskin retracted.jpg
- File:Male Indian Uncircumcised Flaccid Penis.jpg
—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) ping me plz 02:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, low quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation - the image is taken from a non-free source [1] Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Monzurmoin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo. Out of project scope.
~Moheen (keep talking) 05:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Photos from affection1004.tistory.com
[edit]Although the posts are labeled as {{Cc-by-4.0}}, clicking on the blog's round banner brings up a notice which reads: "2차가공 로고크롭 금지" ("Secondary processing and logo crops are prohibited"). This contradicts the Creative Commons license, and photos from this blog can not be hosted on Commons.
- File:180510 안유진 01.jpg
- File:180510 안유진 02.jpg
- File:180510 장원영 01.jpg
- File:180510 장원영 02.jpg
- File:180510 장원영 03.jpg
- File:180510 장원영 04.jpg
- File:180510 장원영 05.jpg
- File:180510 장원영 06.jpg
- File:180611 안유진 01.jpg
- File:180611 안유진 02.jpg
- File:180805 장원영 01.jpg
- File:180805 장원영 02.jpg
- File:180805 장원영 03.jpg
- File:180805 장원영 04.jpg
- File:180805 장원영 05.jpg
- File:180805 안유진.jpg
ℯxplicit 10:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Video contains fragments from the movie. The original source doesn't mention permission from the producer and Punch Creative isn't mentioned in the credits of the movie as having copyright, so there is doubt the license on vimeo is correct. Mbch331 (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- This trailer for the movie was produced by AV production company Punch Creative for Stichting Dansen op de Vulkaan, the producer of the movie. As they are professionals we might assume that there was consensus which fragments to use for promotion of the movie and under what permission. We don't have to doubt their contracts. This promotion material was released under CC-BY-SA more than two years ago. if this was the full movie, we might assume a mistake, but not for a trailer as they are meant for promotion, so CC-BY-SA is a very normal and valid choice. --Hannolans (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Hannolans. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Re-opening this DR. In the previous deletion debate uploader said that Punch Creative was the productian company of this film. IMDB says the production company is Stichting Dansen op de Vulkaan de Film Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I didnt say Punch Creative is the production company of this film, I said they produced the trailer for stichting Dansen op de Vulkaan. --Hannolans (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- You are correct. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy close, please Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: revoked by nominator. --Jcb (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation Daehan (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal picture. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep educationally useful as a photo of Category:Ol12-7. Specifically, this one has a good close-up of the identifying badge and cab. clpo13(talk) 16:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep In addition to the above, the foreground people provide a sense of scale.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - main focus on non notable people - we have good alternatives. --Jcb (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Fons Heijnsbroek
[edit]Modern art. I think artist identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:1984 - charcoal drawing of old shipyard De Kromhout in Amsterdam by Dutch artist Fons Heijnsbroek.tif
- File:1984 - crayon-drawing of De Kromhout, old shipyard in Amsterdam city, by Dutch artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:1985 - Dutch old farm with empty fields acrylic painting on paper by Dutch artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:1987 'No title', black ink drawing and crayon on paper, by artist Fons Heijnsbroek 20x 30cm.png
- File:1987 - A Sunday afternoon - acrylic painting on canvas by artist Fons Heijnsbroek.tif
- File:1987 - Shamanistic painting on canvas by artist Fons Heijnsbroek 140 x 120.png
- File:1988 - charcoal drawing of Eastern harbor, Amsterdam, Dutch artist Fons Heijnsbroek.tif
- File:1988 - charcoal-drawing of former Eastern harbor area in Amsterdam, artist Fons Heijnsbroek.tif
- File:1988 - Hope - an acryl painting on canvas by Dutch artist Fons Heijnsbroek.tif
- File:1988 - linocut, graphic print of an abstract stillife, by Dutch artist Fons Heijnsbroek.png
- File:1988 drawing of the Loyd hotel, Oostelijke Handelskade in Amsterdam, artist Fons Heijnsbroek.tif
- File:1988 linocut in black-white; field and trees, Dutch artist Fons Heijnsbroek.tif
- File:Burgundian landscape with trees in the meadow - 1993 bgy Dutch painter Fons Heijnsbroek; oil painting.png
- File:Colorful landscape painting in watercolor art on paper - North East Netherlands by Dutch painter Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Comic wall painting on the brick house-wall in the Plantage district, Amsterdam from photographer, Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Dutch Summer-landscape in region Groningen, 1985 - watercolor-painrting on paper by artist Fons Heijnsbroek.png
- File:Glued stencil art at the Elandsgracht in the Jordaan district Amsterdam from photographer, Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Bending, watercolor painting on paper - artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Raveel my guide - colorful abstract watercolor painting - artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Joy-lines - digital art-print - artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Joying in lines - digital abstract art-print, after a destroyed watercolor painting - artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Landscape 1. - abstract colorful watercolor painting on paper - artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Landscape for 2012.jpg
- File:Ripe cornfield near Bourtange, the Neatherlands, landscape painting on pasper by Dutch artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Sober Landscape - digital art print, made after an original watercolor painting - artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:The One - abstract watercolor on paper - artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:The Two - abstract watercolor painting on paper -artist Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Wall painting in Amsterdam city, near Roeterseiland University area from photographer, Fons Heijnsbroek.jpg
- File:Winter landscape in East of The Netherlands, painting by Dutch artist Fons Heijnsbroek, 1984.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ilia,.v.m. (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Эркер и башня Дома С.Г. Гордеева.jpg
- File:Вид на Дом С.Г. Гордеева с перекрестка.jpg
- File:Южный фасад дома С.Г. Гордеева.jpg
- File:Восточный фасад Дома С.Г. Гордеева.jpg
- File:Наличники первого этажа.jpg
- File:Надгробие С.Г. и Е.Ф. Гордеевых.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hyehwang Kim (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fonjocks777 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Oeuvre non libre : voir http://www.konbini.com/ng/inspiration/arinze-stanley-wins-worlds-best-self-portrait-at-the-american-art-awards/
Habertix (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
_MBT_Logol.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_MBT_Logol.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality vectorization, still contains original raster image embedded in background. Unused. GKFXtalk 21:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
_MBT_Logol.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
_MBT_Logol.svg){kind=link}
False date, found elsewhere such as http://derosechampagnat.com.br/metodo-derose/comendador-derose/ Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
This image is low quality and therefore has little intristic educational value. Please upload a higher quality image DoormatSecretary (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete useless Seven Pandas (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: The issue of intristic educational value is one of COM:SCOPE. Despite its terrible quality, this image is current in use on two projects, and thus in scope. We do not editorialize other projects' image choices. Renominate if/when it has been replaced. --Эlcobbola talk 15:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Re upload Guru Ethic (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No Bollywood Hungama watermarks. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Not taken in India, so permission is not valid. ~Moheen (keep talking) 04:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that these stills fall under {{PD-USGov}} or {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}.
ℯxplicit 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation Daehan (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- How do you know that? Are you Luz Casals or Juan Perez-Fajardo? I understand that the picture was uploaded and licensed under CC0 1.0 by the author and copyright owner herself 194.174.73.80 08:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC) MPB
- The image has clearly been taken from [2]. It's not listed as CC 0 there. Teratix (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal photo. Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by EastLondonStudios (talk · contribs)
[edit]as per EXIFs "Voyteck Photography www.london-weddingphotographer.com", don't match with the uploader name, we need a permission from Voyteck Photography. + prior publication. + maybe out of scope ToO
- File:Black stage with white cove.jpg
- File:White cove.jpg
- File:White cove corner.jpg
- File:Black stage space 2.jpg
- File:Studio green room.jpg
- File:Black stage space 1.jpg
- File:Studio make up room.jpg
Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The file metadata shows the author as Piret Pakler (proffessional photographer). The uploader is Ville Jehe. Not own work. Cumbril (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Seven Pandas (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - COM:OTRS from Pakler needed. --Эlcobbola talk 16:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bad resolution. 76.187.211.251 22:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Useless. We should have some quality standards. Seven Pandas (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose [...] Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality.". --Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unclear resolution 76.187.211.251 22:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Useless. We should have some quality standards. Seven Pandas (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose [...] Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality.". --Эlcobbola talk 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
What do you think, is the file incorrect? It is unused and file:L Values of Aromatic Compounds korr.png is used. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- The difference is the signs of the numbers for each structure vs a unified "–" in the units for the whole set. The in-use file is used in de:Aromatizität, where it is cited to doi:10.1021/ja01005a059, and there they use the latter idea (i.e., the ref Table I lists benzene as having an "exaltation" (symbol "Λ") value of "13.7" in a column that is annotated "given in units of –10–6 cm3/mole". So apparently that is the standard. So that's apparently the standard, so the replacement file is following the standard and we should Delete this nominated file as being a confusing and non-standardized format. DMacks (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Low/no educational value —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I´am sick and tired of the same false arguments used to delete files, in this case an false argument of low/no educational value, used to delete depictions of nudity, instead of calling the file to be deleted for moral panic of the deletion requester.
- Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology and see that there is an overwhelming majority that see the educational value. Per previous discussions this file is educational, and is in use in russian wikinews in wikinews in https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F:HTML.
- And, irony, this file was used on a crowdfunding project to educational lessons of HTML5, as can be seen in http://boomstarter.ru/projects/exey/body_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE_html5 and per descriptions of the filepage. For a file supposedly of "Low/no educational value", its used in an educational project? Tm (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that it's in use on an empty category marked for deletion at ru.wn isn't really compelling nor is someone using a piece of media in a crowdfunding campaign--you could use literally any image on a crowdfunding site for virtually any purpose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment How low can you go? The category marked for deletion was marked for deletion by you, fact that you conveniently did not disclosed. The file is in use, has educational use and yet you did not gave any compelling reason to delete it, as you have none. And the crowdfunding project was for an educational project, so an image used in an educational project does not have an educational use? Tm (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone can see who marked it for deletion (besides, how long would something be tagged for deletion?) And yes, just because a piece of media was used for a crowdfunding campaign, that doesn't mean the media is educational. As I wrote above, literally anything could be used in a similar campaign. User:Tm can you come up with some piece of media that couldn't be? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment "Some piece of media that couldn't be" used in an crowdfunding campaign? Many, explicit images of warfare and terrorist propaganda, like dismembered, disemboweled and shoot bodies, imagery of coprophilia (and there is educational media of fake coprophilia like the 120 Days of Sodom). The point that your trying to get around and do not comment, curiously, is that the crowfunding was for an educational project. This image was used, besides this crowdfunding, in the specific educational project funded in the crowdfunding. So please explain how is it possible for an image, being used in a educational project, not being an educational image. Besides image is in use, so this is automatically in scope. Tm (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- You definitely could have an image of warfare on a crowdfunding campaign; you could have any image on one. That doesn't make it educational, even if you're raising money for something to do with education. No one learns anything from seeing this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Now your making an sneaking move by nominating to deletion the page were this file is in use and not stating it in this page, or having questionable motives to have this image deleted, image witch was had two uses: .
- You definitely could have an image of warfare on a crowdfunding campaign; you could have any image on one. That doesn't make it educational, even if you're raising money for something to do with education. No one learns anything from seeing this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone can see who marked it for deletion (besides, how long would something be tagged for deletion?) And yes, just because a piece of media was used for a crowdfunding campaign, that doesn't mean the media is educational. As I wrote above, literally anything could be used in a similar campaign. User:Tm can you come up with some piece of media that couldn't be? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that it's in use on an empty category marked for deletion at ru.wn isn't really compelling nor is someone using a piece of media in a crowdfunding campaign--you could use literally any image on a crowdfunding site for virtually any purpose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- 1- One in the crowdfunding
- 2- In the educational project itself, use that you keep ignoring, so aswer how is an image used in an educational you distort what other say.
- Also you distort what others say, as i said "explicit images of warfare and terrorist propaganda", not all images of warfare. Have you ever seen an image of an exit wound of an 7.62×51mm NATO in an human head? Search it and then try to say that this kind of imagery could be used in an crowdfunding. Or an ISIS terrorist video of a man being ripped by an ZU-23 to pieces. So could "literally anything could be used in a similar campaign"? No, not at all. Besides please explain how this image, used in the educational project, (besides the crowdfunding), is not educational? Tm (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing "sneaky" about suggesting that empty categories be deleted. And yes, I'm sure you could learn something from an exit wound photo or put it on a crowdfunding campaign. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominate the page were this file is used and not disclosing on in this page is sneaky. No words to the contrary will deny it.
- Also if you really think that an image of an exit wound in an human head made by an 7.62 Nato, an exit wound that is an hole of a size of an big orange and with splattered brain matter intermixed with cranial fragments, brain tissue, blood, etc that is ripped from the head can be used in a crowdfunding page to the general public, then there is nothing more to say than that you would make some questionable if not outrageous choices. So, by your standards, someone can learn from violent and explicit images of warfare, like dismembered heads, disemboweled bodies, but not from an educational project that uses images of nudity? Interesting choices, but fit with the times that we live, that images of nudity are considered more dangerous and less educational than images of violent warfare. I´am saying this as someone that was uploaded tens of thousands of military and warfare imagery.
- Funny, even more, that this image is part of a much broader set of imagery, created by Exey Panteleev, that makes "nude IT lessons". The coverage of this educational lessons are so great that it has had coverage by reputable and international press, like The Next Web, GQ Italy, french newspaper Libération, czech Reflex. All talk of this being an educational project. So is this not educational? Tm (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept, in scope: Category:Body painting. Strakhov (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No educational value. + COM:NOTUSED Zenwort (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The copyrighted sign is the main subject of the photo. I doubt that it can be considered de minimis. Ruthven (msg) 10:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Malaquías Aguirre López has no articles, likely out of scope, unused Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
likely out of scope + likely not an own work (small size without EXIFs) Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
IMO this logo is above the ToO, therefore we need a permission from the copyright holder Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
as per the metadayas "FBMD", grabbed from facebook Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Flickr License if OK, but it's a picture of a copyright poster. I doubt if the Flickr owner owns that copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 17:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
screengrab of a copyrighted television programme Cnbrb (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The purpose is to archive pictures of the musuem, of the items which were in the museum, not pictures of visitors. Mguebel (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The purpose is to archive pictures of the musuem, of the items which were in the museum, not pictures of visitors. Mguebel (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Image looks like webfind: COPYVIO suspected.-- Weltbilt (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Copyvio. Copyright by RAFIQUR RAHAMAN
~Moheen (keep talking) 20:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The image looks like a TV/film screenshot for me. No EXIF and the resolution is small (as if the image was taken from the Internet). Also the uploader is a single purpose account whose only contribution on Wikimedia wikis is the upload of this image which is an indication that he is not familiar with our licensing policy. Meno25 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Half the source images have been deleted Discasto talk 20:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, remaining source images nominated for deletion. --Didym (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
own work highly unlikely, made one year after his death + found on web Denniss (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Can u link the webpages?--Sanandros (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- just use tineye or google image search. Plus this file may be a reupload ~1 month after a file of the same name was deleted. --Denniss (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Unused art of non-notable artist, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Kasun Perera - This is my design — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasun Perera 18 (talk • contribs)
What is your problem with my creation? Taivo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasun Perera 18 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing to do with the image. Taivo (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Please delete -- I created this accidently as a duplicate. "Town hall of Tübingen" already exists as a category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dktue (talk • contribs) 07:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Does not look like an open license per https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Files with small resolution without metadata camera. Missing permission. minhhuy (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Files with small resolution without metadata camera. Missing permission. Also too low quality for historical purpose minhhuy (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Files with small resolution without metadata camera. Missing permission. Also too low quality for historical purpose minhhuy (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Files with small resolution without metadata camera. Missing permission. Also too low quality for historical purpose minhhuy (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Files with small resolution without metadata camera. Missing permission. Also too low quality for historical purpose minhhuy (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:TOY or simply because it's a statue from the Evangelion Exhibition in the Kobe Yukari museum. Ruthven (msg) 10:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure the statement is sufficient for Commons. Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- https://www.christenunie.nl/beeldbank
- "Onderstaande foto's zijn vrij voor redactioneel gebruik onder vermelding van de naam van de fotograaf. Onderstaande foto's zijn vrij voor online gebruik voor kennisdeling en naslag (e.g. Wikipedia). Voor al het overige gebruik moet eerst contact gezocht worden met de fotograaf. Mail hiervoor met (adres)."
- (The photos below can be freely used for editorial purposes with attribution of the photographer. The photos below can be freely used online to share knowledge (e.g. Wikipedia). For all other uses the photographer should be contacted first. To do this you can mail (address).)
- Delete - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
small size without EXIFs : unlikely to be own work Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
don't seems to be an own work, but more likely a kind of screenshot Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation: https://www.instagram.com/p/BmoExoRAUNF Mauricio C. (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Mauricio C. ya tengo el mail del fotografo que realizó esta foto, el mismo me da el visto bueno para que la publique. Como puedo demostrarte esto, sin que antes me borres esta foto ni esta File:Buffarini Copa Libertadores.jpg. Espero tu rápida respuesta, gracias! Nicocuervo95 (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Que tal Nico, yo solo nomino la foto, no decido si se borra o no. En cuanto a lo de la publicación, aquí puedes ver más sobre el tema: Commons:OTRS/es. --Mauricio C. (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: not valid OTRS ticket,. --Ezarateesteban 22:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Pages d'un livre, donc sous droits d'auteurs, voir Commons:OTRS/fr
- File:Benjamin Jules Rosette and Edouart Glissant.png
- File:Benjamin Jules Rosette and Peter Brook.png
- File:Benjamin Jules Rosette and Golden Gate Quartet.png
- File:Benjamin Jules-Rosette and the Golden Gate Quartet.jpg
- File:Itineraire theatre noir Cover.jpg
- File:Benjamin Jules-Rosette and Memphis Slim.jpg
- File:Benjamin Jules-Rosette.png
Shev123 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There is an OTRS email received for File:Itineraire theatre noir Cover.jpg but not processed yet, ticket:2018101410004006. -- User: Perhelion 21:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission for 30 days. --Jcb (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The picture represents Max Cinus playing a gittar. So I think there is a copyright problem, and a wrong claim in the sens he cannot be the photographer Les Meloures (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - copyrighted at the bottom right, permission needed. — Racconish 💬 12:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Derivative work Discasto talk 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Bonjour,
Je fais suite à la demande de suppression de la photographie (MarcillyleHChavaudon.jpg) exprimée par la propriétaire du Château.
En effet le château est sur un domaine privé et la propriétaire se fait très souvent importuner par de nombreux "touristes" / "curieux" qui s'introduisent sur son domaine et ceci malgré les panneaux de signalisation "propriété privée".
Aussi auriez vous l'amabilité de bien vouloir supprimer la photo (MarcillyleHChavaudon.jpg) de la fiche Château de Chavaudon de Marcilly le Hayer.
Par avance merci de votre attention sur cette requête et merci également de la promotion importante que vous avez faite sur le territoire de l'Aube depuis des années.
Bien cordialement,
Grégory Davaillaud
Responsable Système d'Information
CDT Aube
03 25 42 50 00 Aube en Champagne (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose : no valid reason for deletion. Also: architect Category:Hector Guimard died in 1942 so his work is public domain. Peter17 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No valid reason regarding this picture delition, being taken from outside the property (one can see the trees of the hedge right in the fore). A photo in Wikipedia could in no way be responsible for people visiting the castle, required or not. And the ignorance and blindness which may serv the quiteness of the place ? are precisely what Wikipedia fights against. If you want to delete it, can you propose another one to replace it maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grefeuille (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — Racconish 💬 12:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
This picture depicts an architectural work by Carlo Sarrabezolles (1888-1971), a French artist who died less than 70 years ago. This work of art is copyrighted and, as there is no Freedom of panorama in France, it won't be freely shared before 1st January 2042. For this reason, this picture must be removed from Wikimedia Commons.
- File:Monument Résistance Jura Lons Saunier 1.jpg
- File:Monument Résistance Jura Lons Saunier 2.jpg
- File:Monument Résistance Jura Lons Saunier 3.jpg
- File:Monument Résistance Jura Lons Saunier 4.jpg
- File:Monument Résistance Jura Lons Saunier 5.jpg
- File:Monument Résistance Jura Lons Saunier 6.jpg
- File:Monument à la gloire de la Résistance Jurassienne.jpg
Pymouss Let’s talk - 18:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
_(BBA5350).jpg){kind=link}
_(BBA5350).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I am not sure how this is CC-3.0 license since the website it is sourced from clearly states that is under the copyright of Munich Security Conference Foundation and there is no other copyright page on the website which states otherwise or releases the media under any license Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
_(BBA5350).jpg){kind=link}
- @Adamgerber80: On https://www.securityconference.de/en/legal-advice/: "Photographs of the conference which are offered for download may be used free of charge, provided that the name of the photographer is indicated. The pictures are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany License." There are 307 files from https://www.securityconference.de on Commons as of October 9th, 2018. I think the {{cc-by-3.0-de}} license applies to this file. // sikander { talk } 00:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also, this file from the same source was reviewed by an Administrator. // sikander { talk } 00:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sikander: This license was not present on the page when I nominated it for deletion and was subsequently added. I withdraw my nomination. Can you please update the author of the image to be the photographer (which is a requirement per their license statement) and in future can you please ensure that all image uploads have links to their license. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamgerber80: Yep, my mistake in not adding the permission link to the photo during upload. Source seems to be "Bildquelle: World Economic Forum", similar to the other file. // sikander { talk } 16:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sikander: That should be fine. Please ensure that all requirements of the license are met. This can become a major headache at a later stage. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamgerber80: Yep, my mistake in not adding the permission link to the photo during upload. Source seems to be "Bildquelle: World Economic Forum", similar to the other file. // sikander { talk } 16:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sikander: This license was not present on the page when I nominated it for deletion and was subsequently added. I withdraw my nomination. Can you please update the author of the image to be the photographer (which is a requirement per their license statement) and in future can you please ensure that all image uploads have links to their license. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also, this file from the same source was reviewed by an Administrator. // sikander { talk } 00:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. — Racconish 💬 12:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
_(BBA5350).jpg){kind=link}
Trientalis included in Lysimachia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtěch Zavadil (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 Oct 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: empty cat. --JuTa 04:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the photographed work, a derivative of the coat of arms; vision, mission, and core value statements; and a photograph of the institute, is freely licensed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, PRP. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
keepThis follows a discussion at Special:Diff/324110571#Uganda_Virus_Research_Institute,_Zika_Forest.- The Coat of Arms is established as free by prior review at en:Coat of arms of Uganda and en:File:Coat of arms of Uganda.svg. Anyone can nominate the original image for deletion, but for the purpose of this image, I think the review of the main image is sufficient evidence to establish that the Commons community has in the past evaluated this image as free.
- For the mission statement we have Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Uganda which says that the government applies "No copyright in public benefit works". The mission statement in this poster exists to inform the public of the mission of this government agency, the Uganda Virus Research Institute. The mission statement is perhaps the most public facing publication of this organization as its purpose is to inform the public of this taxpayer-funded, public benefit research on Zika virus and other diseases. I assert that the government's intent in publishing the "no copyright" statement is to make information like government mission statements free to circulate without the restriction of copyright.
- What is the problem with the photograph of the institute? We have an OTRS ticket from the photographer and Uganda has freedom of panorama. What more does Commons require? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Things to consider the copyright of:
- the coat of arms
- probably PD
- probably PD
- the vision, mission, and core values statements
- These do not fall under any of the types of works listed under "No copyright in public benefit works" at Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Uganda.
- These do not fall under any of the types of works listed under "No copyright in public benefit works" at Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Uganda.
- the photograph of the institute
- This could be freely licensed because of FOP but we do not have evidence of that it is. FOP only means that the photographer did not infringe on the architect's (or other copyright holder of the building) copyright , not that the photographer's work is not copyright.
- This could be freely licensed because of FOP but we do not have evidence of that it is. FOP only means that the photographer did not infringe on the architect's (or other copyright holder of the building) copyright
- the derivative work combining #1–3
- This can only be freely licensed if
- #1–3 are freely licensed and
- the person who created/designed this derivative work released their work under a free license.
- #1–3 are freely licensed
- This can only be freely licensed if
- the photograph of #4
- This can only be freely licensed if
- #4 is freely licensed and
- the photographer released their work under a free license.
- #4 is freely licensed
- This can only be freely licensed if
- — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: For 3 why do you evaluate as a red cross? What problem do you have with the photographer's release of their work? Did this not occur in the typical way? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also 3 and 4 are the same - the photograph is the derivative work containing all these.
- And freedom of panorama does not apply. It was my mistake to bring it up. This is the inside of a building which is private. Regardless, the design elements here of the architecture are not copyrightable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Vision and Mission as published on the Uganda Virus Research Institute website. The poster shows this. The notice on the website claims everything as copyrighted, which is supporting evidence of this being copyrighted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- 3 and 4 are not the same. 4 is the work hanging on the wall. 3 is the photograph in the backgroud of 4, and there is no relase for it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- the coat of arms
- I see. Well, there will be no release of that photograph.
Deleted: per discussion. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Swans of Ireland.jpg
[edit]
"not for sale" - this directly contradicts the license on the page, and leaves the copyright status to be ambiguous. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete these images are unused, though the local enwiki versions are used, and because the author has not been around for 11 years on enwiki or here it's unlikely we can get an OTRS verification. So no real loss here. Ww2censor (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Ww2censor.--√Tæ√ 08:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Low quality alternative to File:Abraham lincoln inauguration 1861.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Unable to confirm this photo was taken in 1960-01-01 shizhao (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Unable to confirm this photo was taken in 1960-01-01 shizhao (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The original is copyrighted - source is http://www.americansouthwest.net/wyoming/yellowstone/ear-spring_l.html The USGS tell me they received the image direct from Yellowstone NP' I am awaiting a reply from them as to how they acquired it 2A00:23C4:6D81:FD00:5C1B:F820:B8DD:5538 19:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The original is copyrighted - source is http://www.americansouthwest.net/wyoming/yellowstone/ear-spring_l.html The USGS tell me they received the image direct from Yellowstone NP' I am awaiting a reply from them as to how they acquired it 2A00:23C4:6D81:FD00:711B:EB5:325C:FA88 08:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The image has since been removed from the USGS page — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.173.238 (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: (c) Janet Jones. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The name of the file is wrong. I need to change it to Dean Heller and Neil Gorsuch.
Deleted: no such file. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This is an old logo and needs to be removed in all its forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honestaccount (talk • contribs) 15:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: complex logo. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Not covered by FoP: not a permanent exhibition Discasto talk 10:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
These images are not owned by the author. Only the voice-over is an original creative addition. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Potentially transformative, but Fair Use is not allowed on Commons. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ℯxplicit 00:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
http://www.groovedelighters.de/index.html Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 11:38, 2 Februar 2019 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wirosy --Krdbot 01:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
_completed_acceptance_trials.jpg){kind=link}
_completed_acceptance_trials.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo is courtesy of Austal USA and not copyrighted by the U.S. Navy Cobatfor (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
_completed_acceptance_trials.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep See User:Fæ/email/DoD; everything on DVIDS is unambiguously public domain, regardless of source. Kges1901 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Keep per email giving permission. --Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
_completed_acceptance_trials.jpg){kind=link}
PD-signature doesn't apply to India Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ratte as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: not in use, uploader request
Converted by me to DR, as file does not qualify for SD. However, a courtesy-deletion might be o.k. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Info: It's not clear PD because Brushlinsky and Mitin have participated in this translation [3]. I suppose it shouldn't be kept in view of free translation's availability. Ratte (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ratte as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: not in use, uploader request
Converted by me to DR, as file does not qualify for SD. However, a courtesy-deletion might be o.k. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Info: It's not clear PD because Mark Mitin has participated in this translation [4]. I suppose it shouldn't be kept in view of free translation's availability. Ratte (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ratte as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: not in use, uploader request
Converted by me to DR, as file does not qualify for SD. However, a courtesy-deletion might be o.k. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Info: It's not clear PD because Alexander Maximow has participated in this translation [5]. I suppose it shouldn't be kept in view of free translation's availability. Ratte (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ratte as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: not in use, uploader request
Converted by me to DR, as file does not qualify for SD. However, a courtesy-deletion might be o.k. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Support deletion of initial file revision per courtesy (and maybe even as copyvio). And Oppose deletion of the 2nd revision of this file unless supported by its uploader @VadimVMog: or some further explanation is provided. The initial nomination was clearly invalid as such files (books) are in scope even if unused. Ankry (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)- Support deletion. — VadimVMog (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Info: It's not clear PD because w:Abram Deborin has participated in this translation [6] — in both versions ofc. I suppose it shouldn't be kept in view of free translation's availability. Ratte (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- This info is missing from description. So Undelete in 2034? Ankry (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Non-English page name, seems to serve no purpose, redirect only Cnbrb (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Aren't redirect titles not limited to English? The idea is to redirect this to the name of the BBC, which does operate websites in Indian languages. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, maybe. I don't know, it just looked odd to me. If it actually serves a purpose, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Cnbrb (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know how to formally withdraw the delete request, but consider it withdrawn. Cnbrb (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment 2: Turns out this is Burmese for BBC - See my:ဘီဘီစီ - Burma was once a part of the British Empire, ruled as part of the British Raj and later separately. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's not really about the old Empire. There is a long-established BBC Burmese service, and BBC World Service actually broadcasts in over 40 languages. However, I'm not clear why there is a special Burmese redirect and none in any of the other languages. If Commons is to cater for a multilingual world, do we have to set up non-English redirects for all categories in all languages? Kind of sets a difficult precedent, doesn't it? Cnbrb (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Cnbrb: I think because languages using Latin as a script (and even some of those that don't) use "BBC" anyway, but the Wikipedia articles in some East Asian, Eastern European (Cyrillic), Middle East/North African, South Asian and Southeast Asian languages use other titles. Looking through the list of articles about the BBC by language shows what it's called in each language. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- I went ahead and started adding Gujarati, Arabic, Amharic, Chinese, Japanese, etc. redirects WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Cnbrb: I think because languages using Latin as a script (and even some of those that don't) use "BBC" anyway, but the Wikipedia articles in some East Asian, Eastern European (Cyrillic), Middle East/North African, South Asian and Southeast Asian languages use other titles. Looking through the list of articles about the BBC by language shows what it's called in each language. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's not really about the old Empire. There is a long-established BBC Burmese service, and BBC World Service actually broadcasts in over 40 languages. However, I'm not clear why there is a special Burmese redirect and none in any of the other languages. If Commons is to cater for a multilingual world, do we have to set up non-English redirects for all categories in all languages? Kind of sets a difficult precedent, doesn't it? Cnbrb (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The artist (tr:İbrahim Çallı) dead in 1960. Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This is no longer used on any user pages, and therefore not of any educational/other use. (also I don't really need this on the Internet anymore) Arunsunner (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, unclear copyright status Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Dreamy Jazz that are invalid svgs
[edit]- File:LIME logo.svg
- File:British Pedal Company Logo.svg
- File:TTV_Circle.svg
- File:Amazon Music logo.svg
- File:Diatonic scale on C tenor clef.svg - See File:Diatonic scale on C tenor clef.png
The files listed here are files that were uploaded by me and are also not "true" svgs. They are not "true" as they use a wrapper in the svg code to hold the jpeg / png image. All of the images listed here will have an exact copy (with the same file name, but different file format) which is what is held in the svg file. You can take a look at this by looking in the source code for the svg image. Thanks, --Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The uploader first said he was the owner of the copyright. But now he states this photo was made by the club photographer, who did not give permission. So this is a copyright violation. See e-mail from october 8, ticket:Ticket#2018071010002941 Elly (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
PDM at Flickr. No valid explanation for PD. Not old enough for {{PD-Australia}}. Jcb (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep the original archive source at [7] says "copyright expired" and I don't see any reason to second-guess their claim. This photograph falls under point E of {{PD-Australia}} as it was created by the a department of the Queensland government [8] and was taken in 1960, more than 50 years ago. clpo13(talk) 16:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also, at the time this DR was created, the file had a {{Cc-by-3.0-au}} tag, but that doesn't appear to apply to the photograph. The license logo at the bottom of the archive page has a tooltip saying it only applies to the text. clpo13(talk) 16:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I added cc-by-3.0-au because that's what I found
- 1. "Commonwealth, State or Territory owned photographs and engravings: taken or published more than 50 years ago"
- 2. Did you not notice the link to Queensland State Archives — as in State or Territory above — and the note on their record of the image "Copyright Expired"? If you cannot find it through this link http://www.archivessearch.qld.gov.au/Image/DigitalImageDetails.aspx?ImageId=18578
- which may have again expired, just search for image 18578
- I came here with all guns ready to fire - as above, a copy and paste from Jcb's talk page - but is Clpo13 correct and (now) way ahead of me? I think the "text" relates to an extract from an old newspaper and item 1. above applies. Right? Wrong? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Are you only looking at the Flickr page?
Here is the original: here the link may expire but if you search for "New fire engine hose fittings" that will find it. Eddaido (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per clpo13. PD-Australia is valid. Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion, tag is valid. --Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photographer and first publication data are unknown. Maybe the photo is still protected with copyright. Derivative work of the image was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Madre Carmen Rendiles Religiosa Venezolana fundadora de Siervas de Jesús.jpg. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Mates (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
no permission from children depicted Charles (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Mates (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This logo was originally uploaded with an incorrect {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} tag and was tagged as no permission by Ronhjones. The copyright tag was later converted to {{PD-textlogo}} by Alexis Jazz.
On reviewing the image, my initial thought was that the logo might indeed be a bit above COM:TOO for the United States. In fact, the US Copyright Office has a record for copyright registration of the logo with the registration number VA0001972550 (search here to verify). However, further searching found this letter from the US Copyright Office to Twitter. The Copyright Office denied registration to (in my opinion) a more complex version of the logo and affirmed their decision after two appeals. Twitter cited the registration of the simpler logo (Appendix A in the PDF) as a reason the new one should be protected, but, as the PDF linked says, The Office also issued a notice of intent to cancel the designs Twitter referenced in its first request for consideration. which suggests that the current Periscope logo (as seen in File:Periscope Logo.svg) may lose its copyright protection if it hasn't already. IMO, this file should be kept as {{PD-textlogo}}.
Additionally, as a work of the US Copyright Office, would it be possible to upload the referenced PDF to Commons as {{PD-USGov}}? It may be a worthwhile addition to COM:TOO#United States. clpo13(talk) 17:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I went ahead and uploaded it at File:Periscope logo US Copyright Office decision.pdf per the precedent of other files in Category:United States Copyright Office decisions. clpo13(talk) 17:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per findings by clpo13. --Mates (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 2.205.22.43 as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Copyviol One week for discussion is allowed. Does the IP mean, that this is not own work and there's no freedom of panorama in source country Italy? Taivo (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Taivo: Your opinion? Quite unlikely to be own work in my opinion. No answer from the original uploader within 5 months. --Mates (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mates: Beautiful map. Sometimes such maps are even own work, but due to numbers 1–7 in top of map and letters A–L left of map it seems that there was originally grid on map and the grid was removed probably by uploader. I tend to say copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Should new information about authorship or source arise please go with COM:UDR. --Mates (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Religions in Poland 1573
[edit]- File:Religions in Poland 1573.PNG
- File:Religie w I Rz-plitej 1573.svg
- File:Religions in Poland 1573 he.svg
This files are falsification. They are original research and are not based (moreover - contradicted) all reliable sources. Why West Ukraine coloured as Catholic (all sources write that before Brest Unia it was mostly Orthodox but with significant and influential Catholic minority) A lot of others mistakes, every historian of this period can easily spot them. --Gvinder (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Map id based on reliable sources see [9] Mathiasrex (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a reliable source. Map in the link is also very imprecise. --Shmurak (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely original research. The argument of the source mentioned by Mathiasrex is ridiculous as it has Wikipedia-based refences making the map auto-referenced. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - Commons does not have an OR or RS policy - see COM:NOTWP. That the maps are believed to be factually incorrect ("This (sic) files are falsification") is essentially a SCOPE concern. All files are in use on sister projects, however, and thus in Scope by default. The Commons does not adjudicate content; if there is a concern, create alternative maps you believe to be correct and make the case on the sister projects for their substitution. --Эlcobbola talk 16:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Uploaded file in webm file format. Nirmal Dulal (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested shortly after upload; alternative webm is here. --Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
speedy| تم رفع نسخة أخرى Draid (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader's request 3½ years after upload. Unused. I do not understand the language, but I believe, that educational value exists. Do we have better versions? Taivo (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- User:Dyolf77, any thoughts? --E4024 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The user has uploaded a vectorial version of the file. However I don't see a valid reason to delete the jpeg image. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 08:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Essentially no reason given and no consensus to delete. --Эlcobbola talk 17:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
