Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/12/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
bad Quality LutzBruno (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted by Srittau at 11:41, 10 Dezember 2019 UTC: Author or uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content (G7): reason --Krdbot 13:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Spelling error in image title Practicaladvice (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader's req on day of upload. --Achim (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Author request: Better to take down in case of any copyright infringement, I want to take a photo of kids reading the book from another angle to avoid this Photwik (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Derivative works from book cover. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barry Goldwater Cropped.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for posters in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The upload is anonymous and was by a single purpose account that has uploaded this one photograph in order to enter Commons:Photo challenge/2019 - September - Wrecks and wreckage. The photograph was commercially released at iStock a year before the Commons upload. Though Commons often will accept anonymous uploads, where an external release of the same photograph exists on a commercial license by a named photographer, this creates sufficient significant doubt for precautionary principle to apply and require an OTRS or similar confirmation that the upload has been authorized by the photographer. Fæ (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I have just accepted permission for “File:Ship_Wreck_near_Point_Reyes.jpg” under ticket:2019120910009695. ~riley (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BevinKacon as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10|2=account only uploaded self promo or adverts. In use Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Actually most likely a copyright violation, found on the net on earlier dates. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I realized it is bad for my privacy Venkatanaveenk (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete by courtesy: Unused low quality selfie, uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Venkatanaveenk (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Venkatanaveenk (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense Sankar 1995 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Magog the Ogre at 00:58, 11 Dezember 2019 UTC: Copyright violation: video game screenshot --Krdbot 07:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
фото необроблене United corporation Creative studio by Sergiy Morning (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per user request X3. --Yuval Y § Chat § 22:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons TAnthony (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Not because it is from YouTube. The license listed at the link does say Creative Commons and is acceptable here. However, the YouTube uploader does not appear to have any affiliation with the video at all so this appears to be license laundering. Deleted on those grounds. --Majora (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I originally deleted this image because I believed that it was license laundering. However further information was brought to light that I thought I would reopen it. That and my action, deleting the image speedily instead of allowing the DR to continue for the prescribed 7 days, may have been out of process. I still believe that this may be a license laundering incident. The trailer for a copyright movie is within this video so that alone gives me pause that the uploader truly understands copyright. On top of that there really is no indication, in this video, that the person is affiliated with The Exchange, a shopping website, and the logo at the of the video indicated a "Celebrity Spotlight" which could be a different entity. That along with the copyrighted material within the supposed CC video gives me pause. So I'm not going to keep the image right away either but allow for discussion. --Majora (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep
- "Nancy Jay of the Exchange interviews some of the cast from this new film..."
- "Nancy Jay, host of “Celebrity Spotlight” on EXTV, will serve as emcee for the evening."
- https://twitter.com/NancyJayMedia "TV/Radio - Army and Air Force Exchange Service. Movie critic, reporter, announcer, spokesperson." (and [1] links [2])
- https://www.shopmyexchange.com/ links https://www.facebook.com/shopmyexchange/ links https://youtube.com/channel/UCj9TDUx9HKwEiLBYBKwz6TQ
- https://twitter.com/shopmyexchange (verified account) links https://www.shopmyexchange.com/
- The Hangover 2 Celebrity Spotlight intro shows EXTV
- Celebrity Spotlight - Hayes Carll on.. dvidshub.net. Wait WUT? @Clindberg and Johndavies837: I guess this is PD? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, if DVIDS says it's public domain I'd trust it. I also looked on the Exchange website and found a link to the YouTube channel, so it's legit: https://www.aafes.com/about-exchange/public-affairs/ Johndavies837 (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Seems like the Exchange is part of the w:Army and Air Force Exchange Service, part of the US Army though mostly self-funded. I see copyright notices on a couple of related sites, but nothing really approaching a copyright policy, so those may just be website boilerplate which wasn't really changed. I guess they really could be PD-USGov (though of course they would be using any movie clips under fair use themselves). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Indeedous (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons TAnthony (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license.
Starklinson 4:55, 10 December (UTC)
- Keep - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons TAnthony (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 16:55, 10 December (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons TAnthony (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 16:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons by (presumably) someone other than the copyright holder TAnthony (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons by (presumably) someone other than the copyright holder TAnthony (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 17:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Majora (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons by (presumably) someone other than the copyright holder TAnthony (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 4:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons by (presumably) someone other than the copyright holder TAnthony (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons by (presumably) someone other than the copyright holder TAnthony (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 17:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons by (presumably) someone other than the copyright holder TAnthony (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 17:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The video is under CC BY and the channel is legitimate. Nardog (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons by (presumably) someone other than the copyright holder TAnthony (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 4:55, 10 December (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons by (presumably) someone other than the copyright holder TAnthony (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The screenshot is taken from a video originally uploaded to YouTube under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Starklinson 16:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: CC-BY-3.0 license clearly stated on YouTube page. Video appears to be licensed properly. --Majora (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Picture published on another website, probably not a free image Shev123 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 21:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Photo taken from the Facebook page of this artist without credit. Culex (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No permission. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 10:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the user's only uploaded photo. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 10:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE. Hasleytalk 21:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 10:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Unused promotional logo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 10:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope. Only used on userpage, no other meaningful edits on any other wiki. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 10:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Halmontaller (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader's request - Low resolution - Facebook image - Out of scope. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 10:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry, Other Sankar 1995 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
out of scope, bad quality LutzBruno (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
out of scope, bad quality LutzBruno (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bryanz4utoo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Full nude 07.jpg
- File:Full nude 08.jpg
- File:Full nude 04.jpg
- File:Full nude 06.jpg
- File:Full nude 05.jpg
- File:Full nude 03.jpg
- File:Full nude 02.jpg
- File:Full nude 01.jpg
- File:Soft circumcised penis.jpg
- File:Naked ass selfie.jpg
- File:Male testicles and ass.jpg
- File:Male testicles and circumcised penis 05.jpg
- File:Male ass and balls.jpg
- File:Male testicles and circumcised penis 02.jpg
- File:Naked selfie, full frontal.jpg
- File:Male testicles and circumcised penis 01.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, poor quality, redundant and/or out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Same as above. The images is poor quality, and the images do not represent anything that we don't have already. --SimmeD (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akash Rathore Ajmer (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:IMG-20191129-WA0007.jpg
- File:IMG-20191129-WA0008.jpg
- File:Dec01.jpg.jpg
- File:Dec2.jpg.jpg
- File:Dec001.jpg.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fitindia. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akash Rathore Ajmer (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Unauthorized use Bryanz4utoo (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Unauthorized use. Bryanz4utoo (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Unused file. Looks like some sort of personal artwork. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Unused file. Artwork with no meaningful explanation Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
vandalism Bishonen (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private files storage. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
File:La reforma jurídico-política para elegir un gobierno local como contrapeso en los Ayuntamientos del Estado de Hidalgo en 2020.pdf
[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) 15:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 17 December 2019 (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) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
uploaded accodentally during bulk upload Ecritures (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cesar Flores Man (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) 15:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:11, 17 December 2019 (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) 15:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rahul Thokar Lama (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Trainning camp 2019.jpg
- File:Out Trip.jpg
- File:Nepal❤.jpg
- File:Muay Thai championship-2019.jpg
- File:Nepali Flag.jpg
- File:Rahul Thokar Lama.jpg
- File:Nepal First Muay Thai Title Championship-2019.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Unused file. Formula with no explanation. Out of scope Malcolma (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Magog the Ogre as no license (No license since). Symbol for Verlag Rautenberg might be the only reason why this title page isn't {{PD-text}}. Abzeronow (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: per OTRS permission. --Krd 15:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Toshi conan (toshi ota) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:110913 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:150830 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:190825e Toshiconan.jpg
- File:190826e Toshiconan.jpg
- File:190919 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:190929e Toshiconan.jpg
- File:190918e Toshiconan.jpg
- File:190928e Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191015 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191024 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191102 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191101 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191025 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191108 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191107 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191116 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191127 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191115 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:120115 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191204 Toshiconan.jpg
- File:191128 Toshiconan.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Toshi conan (toshi ota) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Toshi conan (toshi ota) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Toshiconan -7° Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Toshiconan 2020-01-23. -10°. Belvédère Kondiaronk. Seiza(正座)posture for warrior state. Pelvis tilted downward, scapulas upward.jpg
- File:Toshiconan in Seiza 正座 -12° Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Toshiconan nude.jpg
- File:2020-01-20. -26° Belvédère Kondiaronk Seiza(正座)posture for warrior state. Pelvis tilted downward, scapulas upward.jpg
- File:2020-01-19. -20 Virgin snow Belvédère Kondiaronk.jpg
- File:Toshiconan 2020-01-18. -24° Belvédère Kondiaronk.jpg
- File:2020-01-17. -30° Belvédère Kondiaronk.jpg
- File:2020-01-16.-7° Belvédère Kondiaronk.jpg
- File:Belvédère Kondiaronk toshiconan.jpg
- File:2020-01-14. -14° Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Toshiconan 2020-01-13. -18° Mt-Royal.jpg
- File:Pose of relieving shoulder stress.jpg
- File:2020-01-12 -18° Mt Royal.jpg
- File:Toshiconan Mt%Royal -15°.jpg
- File:Toshiconan Mt-Royal -25°.jpg
- File:Toshiconan Mt-Royal-25°.jpg
- File:Toshiconan in -18°.jpg
- File:200105 Toshiconan.jpg
posture_for_warrior_state._Pelvis_tilted_downward,_scapulas_upward.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
posture_for_warrior_state._Pelvis_tilted_downward,_scapulas_upward.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. AshFriday (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I want to open new profile ImRaj96 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I dont like it ImRaj96 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
3D model of salt depicted as anion+cation, uncited derivative of other images; not used. Wostr (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Poor mix of different uncited images, salt depicted as anion+cation; not used. Wostr (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Composite of three different uncited images, that probably represent sodium superoxide; not used. Wostr (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; unused & poor-quality file. Mixture of 3D and 2D representation of sodium superoxide! Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 14:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Composite of different uncited images, not used; poor geometry of the anion. Wostr (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Low quality, not used structure; alt. in Category:Linalyl acetate, e.g. File:Linalylacetat.svg in the same orientation. Wostr (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
No cc license found on YouTube , was previously nominated for deletion by a crat but they added a cc tag Eatcha (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete no archived license either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
File:Firefly 8S Action Camera Native 4K GoPro Rival Big Review Test Clips Slomo EIS Test from GearBest.webm
[edit]YouTube account terminated, video not available and also not archived. Not received by any admin either. Eatcha (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete alas, can't find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnhTJGgSiAc on archive.org, archive.today, Bing cache, Google cache or Yandex cache. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Documents, no indication of Creative Commons license.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Sealle (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Emilio Casalini .jpg
- File:Emilio casalini.jpg
- File:Emilio Casalini 1.jpeg
- File:Emilio Casalini 2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arturmilar (talk · contribs)
[edit]No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Bulgaria.
- File:DUBH20193.tif
- File:DUBH20192.tif
- File:DUBH20191.tif
- File:SI2016.tif
- File:EAEB20185.jpg
- File:GMT2017.jpg
- File:HNT20141.jpg
- File:EAEB20184.jpg
- File:EAEB20183.jpg
- File:NOST2016.jpg
- File:EAEB20181.jpg
- File:ЕAEB20182.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
This video is unavailable on YouTube, no LR . Eatcha (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep muted, archive link - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination -- Eatcha (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: nomination withdrawn. --Wdwd (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
too many changes. uploaded new version. Øyvind Holmstad (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Copyright violation from here: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/big-change-avanti-west-coast-17383108 Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
wrong account upload De Frakstok (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content. --Wdwd (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
It was put on by mistake and without permission. The owner of the picture is distressed. Many thanks. Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
[[Category:{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:UK specification Hyundai Coupe.jpg}}]]
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
of the picture is distressed. They don't want there location shown either. Many thanks Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Please remove this picture as the owner is distressed and does want it shown, or coordinates, GPS, location shown etc. Sorry for any inconvenience. Thanks Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheatley Hill (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
. Many thanks Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
=== File:DAF 66.jpg =Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
of the picture is distressed. They don't want their location revealed either. Many thanks Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The owner of the picture is distressed and did not want this picture to be used for privacy and anxiety reasons. They don't want their location revealed either. Many thanks. Sorry for any inconvenience. Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The owner of the picture is distressed and did not want this picture to be used for privacy and anxiety reasons. They don't want their location revealed either. Many thanks. Sorry for any inconvenience. Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The owner of this picture did not want this picture to be used. They are distressed and anxious. They also don't want their coordinates /GPS location revealed. Sorry for any inconvenience. Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The owner of this picture did not want it put on Wiki etc. They are distressed and anxious about this. Also worried about coordinates /GPS location being on Internet. Sorry for any inconvenience. Wheatley Hill (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Privacy information removed, no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Halmontaller (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BrendanSheehan6247 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
derivative work of likely not free images GPSLeo (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Needs OTRS permission. --Hanooz 20:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Poor quality structure from ChemSpider, alt. available in Category:Santalol, e.g. File:Alpha-Santalol Structural Formula V1.svg. Wostr (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Poor quality structure from ChemSpider, alt. images in Category:Santalol, e.g. File:Beta-Santalol Structural Formula V1.svg; not used. Wostr (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Low quality structure with different script used; not used; incorrect geometry; invalid license. Wostr (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Low quality GIF image with many alt. structures in Category:Farnesol (PNG/SVG). Wostr (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: {{BadGIF}} with alts, per nom. --DMacks (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Poorly-drawn double bond on the side-chain (this is likely cropped or copy-pasted from some uncited original). Have File:Allylbenzene.svg among various Category:Allylbenzenes alts DMacks (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, have File:Allylbenzene.svg as high-quality vector replacement! Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 06:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Unused file. Unexplained table with no educational value. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Bad geometry at bottom-center atom of the ring. It should be tetrahedral not planar. DMacks (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; unused & incorrect file. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 06:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Not a covalent-molecular substance. And if it were, it would have have ionic charges on the atoms. DMacks (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
And likewise:
DMacks (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Not a molecular substance. DMacks (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
And likewise:
DMacks (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Invalid license, poor quality + part of a ChemSpider UI visible; not used. Wostr (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 13:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
3D model of isoeugenol without hydrogen atoms. Wostr (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Without that or some other detail, there's no way to know which location is the alkene of the propene sidechain, so the image is hopelessly ambiguous for isoeugenol vs eugenol. DMacks (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 13:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Low quality reaction, not used; alt. File:Industrial synthesis of pyrrolidine.svg. Wostr (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by DMacks. --Leyo 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Uncited copy of File:Chloric-acid-3D-balls.png with white background and incorrect filename. Wostr (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Uncited copy of File:Perchloric-acid-3D-balls.png with white background and incorrect filename. Wostr (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Poor quality composite of different images; cf. File:Sodium trithionate.svg as better alt. Wostr (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Poor quality composite, not used; cf. File:Sodium trifluoroacetate.svg as better alt. Wostr (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Extremely bad image quality. No encyclopedic value. Delete please. 94.216.53.104 06:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah that's right. The image quality ist bad and it can be deleted. :-) Nemracc (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Verstoß gegen das Persönlichkeitsrecht. Ich bin keine Person der Zeitgeschichte, daher ist eine Veröffentlichung meines Fotos nicht angebracht, und unter CC-Lizenz schon gleich gar nicht.Viele Grüße, HH58 HH58 (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader hatte das Bild ebenfalls zur Löschung beantragt / There was also a deletion request by the uploader, and upload is recent enough that COM:CSD#G7 would have been applicable at the time of nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Violation of the right to one's own image Amrei-Marie (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Upload is also recent enough that COM:CSD#G7 would have been applicable at the time of nomination, as this is an uploader's request. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Low quality structure of isoeugenol; not used; alt. images in Category:Isoeugenol, e.g. File:Isoeugenol2.svg. Wostr (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete given that we have alts that are higher image quality and also include the alkene-geometry detail (trans rather than cis). DMacks (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete unused & poor-quality chemical structural formula; opaque (white) background. Superseded by File:Isoeugenol2.svg as well as File:Isoeugenol.svg among others in Category:Isoeugenol. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 06:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Poor quality structure from ChemSpider, cf. File:Isoeugenol2.svg. Wostr (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I replaced its uses. DMacks (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment Closer, if you delete, remember also its redirects:
- Delete per nomination; all redirects and the file itself should be deleted! Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 13:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Very low quality chemical reaction; much better alt. images in Category:Kolbe-Schmitt reaction; not used. Wostr (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Poor, not used composite of different images. Wostr (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Poor quality structure from ChemSpider with part of the website UI visible; not used. Wostr (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. But also, the style actually doesn't quite even match what's on ChemSpider at this time. Odd. DMacks (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; just a cheap ChemSpider copy with opaque (white) background & in fairly poor resolution. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 16:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Not used, poor quality structure, mix of two images; alt. images in Category:Fluorobenzene. Wostr (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; low-quality chemical structural formula, opaque (white) background. Have File:Fluorbenzol.svg as high-quality replacement among various others in Category:Fluorobenzene. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 08:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Very low quality structure, a mix of different images, not used. Wostr (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as not the correct structure of the title compound (see doi:10.1021/jf00110a018). I uploaded File:(S)-Turmerone.png and File:(S)-Ar-Turmerone.png if anyone has a use. DMacks (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; poor-quality chemical structure with opaque (white) background. Proper replacements exist. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 20:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
-Turmerone.png){kind=link}
-Ar-Turmerone.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 22:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Very low quality structure, a mix of different images; not used. Wostr (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete replaceable by File:Dibromotyrosine.svg. DMacks (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 22:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Low Resolution Image. No Metadata. Not an important personality. Suggest to delete. Ranjithsiji (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
What are authors dates of life? Why USA law was applied to books printed in India/British Empire?
- File:कर्बला.djvu
- File:हिंदी विश्वकोष भाग ३.djvu
- File:हिंदी विश्वकोश खंड 2.djvu
- File:मीराबाई का काव्य.djvu
- File:रहीम-कवितावली.djvu
- File:अतीत-स्मृति.pdf
- File:आदर्श हिंदू ३.pdf
- File:आदर्श हिंदू २.pdf
- File:आदर्श हिंदू १.pdf
- File:शैवसर्वस्व.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Apparently the author is this guy: Category:Ramdhari Singh Dinkar. The license is wrong and this is not public domain.
File:सौ अजान और एक सुजान.djvu- File:अर्धनारीश्वर.djvu
- File:मिट्टी की ओर.djvu
- File:सामधेनी.djvu
- File:रेती के फूल.djvu
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
HI, Magog the Ogre This file File:सौ अजान और एक सुजान.djvu is copyright free according to low of India which was published in 1944. And the author of this book has died in 1914. नीलम (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I struck that one. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 11:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
No es Duilio Davino, ni siquiera se le parece. He's not Duilio Davino, he's not even alike him at all. Marcelo 
(Abre la puerta y entra a mi hogar) 02:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in use. Use {{Fact disputed}} instead. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It is a book cover. Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 03:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Screenshot from this moment No free license Frodar (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It is a fake, the original is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XMPP_logo.svg.
Please launch same too for https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Logo_XMPP_Standards_Foundation.svg. Neustradamus (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- also file:من فعاليات المركز 4.JPG
Google translates file descriptions as "a development extension event" and "One of the center's introductory activities". Source country is unidentified, files are unused, no helpful categories. That way the files are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
I dont want this file 103.251.140.229 08:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free logo; the claim "own work" is bogus, the logo is from here. I believe the design exceeds threshold of originality, so it cannot be kept as {{PD-textlogo}}. — Yerpo Eh? 09:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-free logo; the claim "own work" is bogus, the image is taken from here. I believe the design exceeds threshold of originality, so it cannot be kept as {{PD-textlogo}}. — Yerpo Eh? 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Copyright notice at bottom left for Leonardo Ramirez Castillo Themightyquill (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Not found at URL. Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I will correct that. --Maddriver371 (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Now corrected. Keep. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Now corrected.
Kept: resolved. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Noeclement (talk · contribs)
[edit]IPhone photos of old photos (themselves taken roughly between 1940 and 1960), very unlikely own work
Ariadacapo (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Noeclement (talk · contribs)
[edit]File:Yaron Herman.jpg is attributed to photographer "Sébastien Vincent" but also labeled as "own work" without proper sourcing or permission. File:Jean-David Blanc.jpg is attributed to "JeanDavid Blanc" (presumably the person on the photo although this is unlikely to be a self-portrait) and also labeled as "own work". Clarification of source and permission is needed.
Ariadacapo (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This is a picture from photographer Peter de Schryver! DirkVE (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Roy17 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: csdg7 special:diff/364003891. Has now been uploaded longer than seven days and not speedy deletable anymore. But 
Support. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
File:Viciebsk, Zadźvińnie-Illinskaja. Віцебск, Задзьвіньне-Ільлінская (I. Trutnev, 1866) (2).jpg
[edit]_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Kazimier Lachnovič as Speedy (Speedy deletion) and the most recent rationale was: Not-used low-qualitative duplicate of File:Viciebsk, Zadźvińnie, Illinskaja. Віцебск, Задзьвіньне, Ільлінская (I. Trutnev, 1866).jpg, request by the file uploader. Uploaded in 2010, not eligible for speedy deletion. But Support for regular deletion. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is already another file like this (File:The Swearing-in Ceremony of the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh.jpg) RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: already redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Tim Bron can't author of this photo Iruka13 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Unused copyvio logo Sakhalinio (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Maratonas21
[edit]- File:GMM Startbereich.jpg
- File:Startschuss 2019 München Marathon.jpg
- File:Zielbereich im Olympiastadion München Marathon.jpg
- File:Startbereich Coubertinplatz München Marathon.jpg
- File:Side view München Marathon.jpg
- File:Startschuss Halbmarathon 2019 München Marathon.jpg
- File:Streckenverlauf München Marathon.jpg
- File:Halbmarathon Start.jpg
All files uploaded by User:Maratonas21 are taken from here on Facebook. The pictures are copyrighted, therefore it's a copyvio. I doubt he is one of the photographers. Cookies4ever (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
NYC Subway emblems uploaded by Rgrant3746
[edit]
These files were all uploaded by User:Rgrant3746. I believe these should all be deleted as they are extremely low-quality PNG versions of existing SVG files. Respectively, these files are:
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-A.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-C.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-J.svg
- File:NYCS-bull-trans-Z.svg
epicgenius (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I am the photographer, deletion at the request of the person depicted Dromedar61 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I am the photographer, deletion at the request of the person depicted Dromedar61 (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I am the photographer, deletion at the request of the person depicted Dromedar61 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I am the photographer, deletion at the request of the person depicted Dromedar61 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also affects the cropped version File:WilliamBuckeyCropped.png
I'm not seeing evidence that this photograph was published without a copyright notice: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/william-f-buckley-jr-of-new-york-city-has-been-nominated-by-news-photo/515045090?adppopup=true
It's definitely not royalty free, as suggested by the uploader - it's a rights-managed photo. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Lo sentimos, esta imagen no es interesante para una enciclopedia ReyOsc (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
File was removed from Flickr, unknown copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
File was removed from Flickr, unknown copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
File was removed from Flickr, unknown copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
File was removed from Flickr, unknown copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
File:UK Youth Students Strike for Climate Change Protest Parliament Whitehall London February 15 2019.webm
[edit]File was removed from Flickr, unknown copyright status A1Cafel (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
"Compromís per la pau de Catalunya" does not seem to exist, the repartition of seats does not correspond to the current composition of the Catalan Parliament. Most probably fake data, misleading diagram Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Invalid license: how it can be PD-old-100 if the man on the photo lived in the years of 1928–2012? Wostr (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Unused formula. No explanation so no educational value. Malcolma (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Unused file. Description says that uploader intended it to be a temporary file. Malcolma (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This video is unavailable on YouTube, no LR and not archived Eatcha (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
According to watermark and the description (in Persian), the photographer is Vahid SahebGheran. The uploader should obtain his permission following the COM:OTRS procedure. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted until 2027, per COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Regasterios (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for outdoor 2D artwork in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep，彩虹眷村的照片都是能被cc分享的https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colorful_military_dependants%27_village.jpg、https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:彩虹眷村塗鴉.jpg--葉又嘉 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- @葉又嘉: 請你看看COM:FOP Taiwan第一行規定：「Not OK for indoor works and outdoor 2D artistic works」，寫著不允許上傳拍攝2D作品的照片。--Kai3952 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- 看看標題，“眷村” 這是建築物--葉又嘉 (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- OK for buildings, sculptures, and by extension other outdoor 3D works --葉又嘉 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- @葉又嘉: COM:FOP Taiwan不是看「眷村」二字，是看照片拍攝的是什麼。房子牆壁上的畫作是屬於2D作品，這樣你懂了嗎？--Kai3952 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- 照片拍的是房子--葉又嘉 (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- 是呀，但是你也將牆壁上的畫作給拍進來，否則怎麼會被提報刪除？--Kai3952 (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Image infringes on the artist's copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [3]. Yann (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=595835201#File:%E5%A4%A7%E9%BB%91%E6%9D%BE%E5%B0%8F%E5%80%86%E5%8F%A3%E5%85%83%E9%A6%96%E9%A4%A8_Salico_Foods_King_Garden_-_panoramio_(2).jpg){kind=link}
See this Village Pump/Copyright discussion. Latest correspondences from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) reaffirmed that the non-commercial restriction for Taiwanese non-architecture extends to photographic reproductions like these. Since this photo shows the artwork intentionally, this cannot benefit from Taiwanese de minimis (in which the artwork must be incidental or at background). Correspondences in Chinese: [4] and [5]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for outdoor 2D artwork in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep，彩虹眷村的照片都是能被cc分享的https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colorful_military_dependants%27_village.jpg、https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:彩虹眷村塗鴉.jpg
--葉又嘉 (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- 而且這是拍攝公共建築，建築屬於台中市政府的，拍攝的照片 是能被自由分享的--葉又嘉 (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- 維基共享上的有大量的彩虹眷村的圖片https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rainbow_village--葉又嘉 (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- @葉又嘉: 請你看看COM:FOP Taiwan第一行規定：「Not OK for indoor works and outdoor 2D artistic works」，寫著不允許上傳拍攝2D作品的照片。--Kai3952 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- 看看標題，這是房子，這是建築物。--葉又嘉 (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- @葉又嘉: COM:FOP Taiwan不是看房子，是看照片拍攝的是什麼。房子牆壁上的畫作是屬於2D作品，這樣你懂了嗎？--Kai3952 (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- 照片拍的是房子，房子有油漆，房子的油漆是房子不可分的一個部分，整體是個3d的作品，而不是2D。--葉又嘉 (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- 比如說 101大樓的外景是2d的，但他是個建築物，照片依然是可以上傳的。彩虹眷村同理https://www1.tipo.gov.tw/fp.asp?fpage=cp&ctnode=7448&xitem=217409&mp=1&captcha.imagevalidation=nn8yj--葉又嘉 (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- 那是你的主張，因為COM:FOP Taiwan所說「2D artistic works」是指2D藝術作品，牆壁上的畫作就是2D藝術作品，所以有常識的人是不會看成是3D，更不會當成是油漆，除非你是在強詞奪理。至於你說101大樓，當然是可以上傳，因為外景是沒有畫作；然而，「同理」二字必須在沒有舉錯例子才適用，顯然你想為照片保留是想瘋了，竟將不同理講成同理。我建議你二個方法：
- 日後上傳照片，乖乖遵守COM:FOP Taiwan。
- 直接去找社群，提議修改COM:FOP Taiwan。
- 你自己選，不用再找我說了。我可以肯定告訴你，你的照片一定會被刪除。我只是不想投下支持票，以免有落井下石之嫌。--Kai3952 (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- 那是你的主張，因為COM:FOP Taiwan所說「2D artistic works」是指2D藝術作品，牆壁上的畫作就是2D藝術作品，所以有常識的人是不會看成是3D，更不會當成是油漆，除非你是在強詞奪理。至於你說101大樓，當然是可以上傳，因為外景是沒有畫作；然而，「同理」二字必須在沒有舉錯例子才適用，顯然你想為照片保留是想瘋了，竟將不同理講成同理。我建議你二個方法：
Deleted: per nomination - Image infringes on the artist's copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [6]. Yann (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- 話說，規定竟然改了。。。--葉又嘉 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- 那是Reke幫你向社群提議修改規定，因為當初我就告訴過你，COM:FOP Taiwan可以透過社群討論來修改，是你自己不聽。--Kai3952 (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
See this Village Pump/Copyright discussion. Latest correspondences from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) reaffirmed that the non-commercial restriction for Taiwanese non-architecture extends to photographic reproductions like these. Since this photo shows the artwork intentionally, this cannot benefit from Taiwanese de minimis (in which the artwork must be incidental or at background). Correspondences in Chinese: [7] and [8]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I am the person shown on this photo. It was published on Flickr without my consent. Olia lialina (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep @Olia lialina: photo taken in Germany at a public event and I think you're a Person der Zeitgeschichte so no consent required. Also, to use this username you need to verify it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also File:Re publica 19 - Day 3 (47014476434) (cropped).jpg. (which imho should also be kept) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
{{Vd}}The picture has been deleted on the original source (Flickr) by the author. I have uploaded four files that can be used as an alternative, 1, 2, 3, 4, and can also provide cropped versions if desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olia lialina (talk • contribs)- @Olia lialina: No double voting. The Flickr user deleting the image makes no difference. Did you contact OTRS as I requested on you talk page? We currently can't verify that you even are who you say you are. And those photos you uploaded, are those selfies? They don't look like selfies. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: My account was finally verified, see my User Page. I would appreciate if the photo was deleted and you would stop creating derivatives and spreading it further, like you did in the English and German Wikipedia already. --Olia lialina (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Olia lialina: I saw that. That's good, that means you can't get blocked anymore for having an unverified username of a well-known person. It also means your request can at least be considered. However, there are still some issues. First issue: the photo in question was taken at a public event. If you have a problem with people taking photos, it is probably unwise to speak at public events. If this photo had been taken while you were unsuspectingly eating in a restaurant, I would have been more likely to support deletion. But no such thing. If the photo had been unreasonably unflattering, deletion could also be considered, depending on circumstances. But again, no such thing. If we had alternatives.. Well, we do, but if we would delete this image, we would then replace it with some alternative that's worse. So naturally you would then request the deletion of the alternative as well, so we move on to the alternative alternative, and you request deletion, and we are running around in circles.
- That is, until we finally get to your uploads, because presumably you are okay with those. But currently, we can't be okay with them. Olia Lialina at the Library was taken by Lea Rowe and presumably the same is true for File:Olia Lialina at the GeoCities Research Institute Library at merz Akademie, Stuttgart.jpg. The browser sweater photo also isn't an obvious selfie. So the author(s) need to send permission to OTRS. (if the author(s) have already contacted OTRS you can ignore this)
- So currently we have no good alternative. As your username has been verified, an obvious selfie could be accepted instantly. See Category:Selfies with arm visibly stretched out for examples. If you use a good camera and take a sharp selfie with good lighting, preferably something that I can crop a portrait from for the Wikipedia infobox, I'll replace it myself. That still won't mean the photo being discussed here would be deleted, but it would be far less visible. A photo that isn't a selfie but is accompanied by permission delivered to OTRS is just as good. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: My account was finally verified, see my User Page. I would appreciate if the photo was deleted and you would stop creating derivatives and spreading it further, like you did in the English and German Wikipedia already. --Olia lialina (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Olia lialina: No double voting. The Flickr user deleting the image makes no difference. Did you contact OTRS as I requested on you talk page? We currently can't verify that you even are who you say you are. And those photos you uploaded, are those selfies? They don't look like selfies. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete --Dragan Espenschied (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Permission of each photographer required via COM:OTRS.
File:Wohnhaus T. in Coesfeld, Ansicht Promenade, Foto Hermann Willers.jpg- File:Modehaus Coesfeld, Foto Wolters Partner.jpg
File:Wohnhaus B, Gartenansicht, Foto Hermann Willers.jpg- File:Gloria Center Herten, Foto Klaus Bossemeyer.jpg
- File:Bagno Steinfurt, Foto Klaus Bossemeyer.jpg
- File:Bagno Verbindungsgang, Foto Anja Engler.jpg
- File:Autohaus LUEG, Witten, Foto Klaus Bossemeyer.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Two kept per OTRS permission. --Krd 13:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Link 404, without lr Eatcha (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is a video from Flickr user David Holt, but sadly he quitted Flickr since October 2019. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The photo appears to belong to the National Journal, not the Federal Reserve: https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/81735/1960s-money-market-men-design-their-dream-fed-chairman. Uploader has linked to the Feds' website, but no useful source information is given. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The author w:Zeki Velidi Togan died in 1970, no evidence of PD. Sealle (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I am pretty sure this is owned by either the Saturday Evening Post or Rockwell's estate. None of the other covers or post-1920s paintings are in the public domain Guerillero 17:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please retain this file. The licensing note on the file states "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1924 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed." It seems then the file is in the public domain and need not be removed. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- The 1989 renewal is here --Guerillero 04:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
no indication of pre-1946 publication required for this to be PD in US and Russia PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
no indication of pre-1946 publication required for public domain status in US and Russia or Ukraine PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
no indication of early enough publication to be PD in US+any potential country of origin (Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, etc) PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
no indication of pre-1946 publication required for PD status in US and Ukraine PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
no indication of early enough publication to be PD in US+Russia PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE Eatcha (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no way to assert the pictures were taken by Polish photographers or first published in Poland Dd1495 (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --INeverCry 08:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Claimed PD-Anonymous-EU. Although the subject died in 1947 and therefore the picture must have been taken before then, publication date and location are unknown, so there's no actual proof that it was PD in Poland or Slovakia on the URAA date. Source website does not state copyright status. Previously kept by banned user INeverCry. Buidhe (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no way to assert the pictures were taken by Polish photographers or first published in Poland Dd1495 (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --INeverCry 07:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Claimed PD-Anonymous-EU but no publication information given. Even if it was published right after it was taken, it would not be PD in Slovakia on the URAA date. Kept by banned user INeverCry. Buidhe (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
NoFoP for monuments in Russia. 83.220.239.94 21:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Video unavailable on YouTube Eatcha (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Why do we care about YouTube?--MaoGo (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- MaoGo Do you have a proof that it was available under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license? Don't ask me the opposite, cuz that's not allowed per policy. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am not defending the file, I just want to understand the argument. What has YouTube to do with all of this? Also what exactly is the policy with these kind of videos?--MaoGo (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @MaoGo: , per policy every file which was uploaded from YouTube (or any other website) must be reviewed by a License reviewer. It was not reviewed for a Long time but fortunately the video was archived on archive.org to proove that it was once available under creative commons license. --Eatcha (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am not defending the file, I just want to understand the argument. What has YouTube to do with all of this? Also what exactly is the policy with these kind of videos?--MaoGo (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- It look like the video was available under a free commons compatible license. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wilfredor You are right it was available under compatible license on YouTube. Vist https://web.archive.org/web/20170509115542/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrZ6QFTUhVM and check the source and If possible please pass the file's review. And Keep --Eatcha (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wilfredor You are right it was available under compatible license on YouTube. Vist https://web.archive.org/web/20170509115542/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrZ6QFTUhVM and check the source and If possible please pass the file's review. And
Keep Per above. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Jamez42:
Warning This video is a Copyright violation, you revert this article: Bolivarian_propaganda, see here. Jkg1997 (talk • contribs • CA) 18:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Jkg1997: The file already said in its description that the video was published under a free commons license, and it has been explained again here. I haven't restored the video again because the request is still open, but likewise files should not be removed from articles while the issue is discussed. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep closing admin: please add a license review. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Warning This is your warning, do not link this Wikipedia article: Bolivarian propaganda in this diff here or CommonsDelinker will be decided to removed the file as Copyright violation. Jkg1997 (talk • contribs • CA) 19:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz:
- @Jkg1997: Waffle bunny! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Raisons personnelles. Mon nom d'utilisateur apparaît et il est lié à cette personne. Cedricokouda (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused file. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This file is not original painting Xpeye (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- And why is it not? Are you an expert on El Greek paintings?--Adamt 19:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Oryginalny obraz wygląda https://d-pt.ppstatic.pl/k/r/12/09/b0/4e1bee52a536d_p.jpg?1460647350 czyli plik El Greco 001.jpg na Wikipedii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpeye (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- A tu wygląda tak https://www.artehistoria.com/es/obra/alegor%C3%ADa-de-la-liga-santa-0 To tylko kwestia aparatu --Adamt 19:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Ale tak jak na Wikipedii nie wygląda nigdzie. Poza tym na moim zdjęciu widać cały obraz z ramą a więc jest mniejsze prawdopodobieństwo modyfikacji. A chyba zależy panu, aby zachować wierność z oryginałem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpeye (talk • contribs) 11:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Czyli tu chodzi o to by było Twoje zdjęcie. Tak zależy mi na tym by zdjęcie było wierne z oryginałem ale jak widac trudno ustalić, które jest to najprawdziwsze. Oba zdjęcia pochodzą z portali o sztuce. Nie można kasować wersji tylko dlatego, że nie ma ramy. Po za tym obrazy w ramach wcale nie wyglądają lepiej w artykułach. --Adamt 12:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Mi nie chodzi, aby było moje zdjęcie, tylko najwierniejsze z oryginalnym. W sieci znalazłem 6 wersji a na pewno jest więcej. Nie chcę, abyś wstawił zdjęcie z ramą, ale najbliższe tej wersji. Tak się składa,że zdjęcia obrazów w ramach najjwierniej oddają kolorystykę dzieła — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpeye (talk • contribs) 13:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Use Template:Fact disputed if necessary. Ruthven (msg) 21:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not original painting 5.173.2.148 17:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- And why is it not? You don't give an argument. Are you an expert on El Greek paintings?--Adamt 19:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per COM:INUSE and this is probably not the right place to discuss the authenticity of the image, especially without any kind of rationale. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The author Trofim Borisov was rehabilitated in 1989, so his works are non-free till 2060. Sealle (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Totally deleting revision history and uploading a new version of the said seal Trajano Cabrales (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: no reason for deletion. --Krd 14:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
License violation; file uploaded from the it.wiki where it has GFDL 1.2 / CC-BY-SA 3.0; invalid author stated as "public domina". Wostr (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Indonesia. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The source of the image (Flickr) is the artist herself and the works shown are her works --Hannolans (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 12:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. They are not "Own work". 1926 Italian photo. Would it fall under {{PD-Italy}} or would we need to determine if photographer died before 1949? Abzeronow (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- The license and the source do not match the date. The license and the source are wrong ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware that the uploader is using the wrong license and that it doesn't appear to be their "own work". Uploader could have made the neophyte mistake is assuming that uploading a scan of a photo means "own work" (the date field even basically is the upload date). I can correct the license and source if we can keep it as PD-Italy. The question that needs to be resolved is whether it falls under that or not (it's a 1926 photograph so it's not so urgent to delete it right away). Abzeronow (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Italy, PD-1996. --Storkk (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. They are not "Own work" 1926 Italian photo. Would it fall under {{PD-Italy}} or would we need to determine if photographer died before 1949? Abzeronow (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- The license and the source do not match the date. The license and the source are wrong ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware that the uploader is using the wrong license and that it doesn't appear to be their "own work". Uploader could have made the neophyte mistake is assuming that uploading a scan of a photo means "own work" (the date field even basically is the upload date). I can correct the license and source if we can keep it as PD-Italy. The question that needs to be resolved is whether it falls under that or not (it's a 1926 photograph so it's not so urgent to delete it right away). Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Trivially {{PD-Italy}} + {{PD-1996}}. --Ruthven (msg) 10:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Italy, PD-1996. --Storkk (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Replacing speedy deletion with regular deletion. To be clear, I do not want this to be deleted. Leijurv (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Replacing the speedy deletion request with a normal deletion request. The creator of this image directly stated, in the source (click the link), "I release this under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, with the intent of posting to Wikipedia.", at my suggestion. He asked me to put it on Wikipedia. https://www.reddit.com/r/2b2t/comments/ccgffq/render_of_spawn_20190710_society_project/etmo807/ Leijurv (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
As a further clarification, this appears to be a video game screenshot but it is not. This is a render created in a separate program that approximates what Minecraft looks like, with additional visual highlights. Leijurv (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
To add on to what was mentioned above, this "render" is basically an aerial view of the world's map. Melofors 23:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Still Delete, a screenshot from an unfree game, even if produced using third-party tools, is still unfree.--BevinKacon (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @BevinKacon: Again, this is not a screenshot from Minecraft. This is created using an open source 3d modeling and rendering tool Chunky. https://github.com/llbit/chunky This is essentially an artist's impression of what a particular world (in this case, the article's subject) looks like. Leijurv (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
File:Screen_shot_decision_matrix.png (from Commons:Screenshots) seems to support this. This is the top left quadrant, since this is a render made by Chunky (GPL licenced), where the screenshot itself is licenced by the creator as CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Leijurv (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, I also support this image. I'm very unfamiliar with the licensing process and how it works, although this seems unprofessional as the source is a social media post and the license is from the creator's comment. Melofors 23:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- What's in question here is not whether IronException releases this image under the right license (he clearly does), but whether he is able to do so in the first place. The answer (in my view) is clearly yes. Minecraft was not used in any way to create this image. The content of the image is entirely user-created.
For example, one could argue that the texture on each Minecraft block is copyrighted. But in this case, a block is so tiny that absolutely none of that is visible. The colors are chosen artistically as vague approximations of what the blocks look like from afar, but it's an **artistic choice**, not directly copied from the game.The game looks nothing like this. Leijurv (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- What's in question here is not whether IronException releases this image under the right license (he clearly does), but whether he is able to do so in the first place. The answer (in my view) is clearly yes. Minecraft was not used in any way to create this image. The content of the image is entirely user-created.
Delete Renders typically use Minecraft texture resources for block tiles, and unless it can be proven explicitly that no Minecraft assets have been used here, it is non-free. The render very clearly to my eyes uses the default tile set. That Minecraft allows for screenshots is correct, but it does not release it in a Commons compatible license. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- If someone can prove the render doesn't use the texture assets as most do, I'd change to a weak keep, possibly. -- ferret (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll follow Geni's reasoning on this. I think there's little risk of anyone making a claim here, to answer the question poised there. -- ferret (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm the creator of this image, IronException. I did not use Minecraft's default textures. This area is too large to render at that size. I create a 1x1 "texture" (really, a single color) for each block in the input map. Then I apply lighting, emission, etc etc IronException (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I will be posting proof of how I make my renders shortly, give me a few hours IronException (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
https://imgur.com/qToMUZN.jpg this is how I made this render. As you can see every block uses a single color. As you can see minecraft's copyrighted textures are not used. IronException (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I suggest you read the creator's words above. Melofors 00:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- commentI think we need to be very clear that this is one courts could jump either way on so we are balancing risk factors There are broadly two copyright claims here. The first is the minecraft copyright claim. For the most part this isn’t a problem. That the image was derived from something drawn within the game engine does not result in a copyright claim (other MS paint could claim copyright on anything drawn with it). The game generated shapes drawn in the outer sections might be an issue since copyright of procedurally generated material is a grey area. That said given Common's general stance is that copyright requires human creativity I don’t think it is something we should consider an issue. That leaves two problems. Firstly the textures and I’m not sure to what extent single colour pixels could be considered derivatives. Secondly parts of this image are recognisably “minecrafty” and since we know this was derived from minecraft rather than say simcity 2000 (similar colour pallet) that might be an issue under some very broad readings of copyright.
- That leaves the issue of the various “drawings” within the image. Given the nominal number of creators and the total size of the image most could probably be considered De minimis although the compass might be an issue (although I’ve been informed the uploader might be able to get us a release on that). The domes towards the center and the square wall (apparently the square wall is a massive multi-person creation) are also potential issues but I don’t know enough about the mechanics of the game to say how much of an issue they are.
- Overall I don’t think there is a right answer here so its more of question of “is it worth the risk”.Geni (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The 6th incursion wall was brought up in a Discord conversation between Geni and myself; in my opinion the aforementioned standard of "human creativity" makes it PD, since it's simply a square with no additional decoration. Same for the domes, which are procedurally generated by repeated interactions between water and lava (again, no "human creativity"). Other than that and the square and compass (where I can secure a copyright release under CC-BY-SA and GFDL for this specific iteration, given that the overall design is PD since it's so old), there are no other structures large enough, most likely, to graduate beyond De Minimis. And all of the mentioned structures were made by dozens of players, with no single contribution causing any of the aforementioned phenomena :) Leijurv (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have gotten the necessary copyright releases mentioned by Geni: https://imgur.com/3EjpYgH.jpg Leijurv (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Strong keep, used in w:2b2t, copyright obviously doesn't apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEANS X2 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @BEANS X2: That is in no form a valid argument. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- How is this not a valid argument? Are any lawyers online to check if this is correct usage (interms of coppyright)? It was made using a free tool, and released under CC by the creator. It doesn't use the Minecraft textures. What's the problem?
>>BEANS X2t10:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- How is this not a valid argument? Are any lawyers online to check if this is correct usage (interms of coppyright)? It was made using a free tool, and released under CC by the creator. It doesn't use the Minecraft textures. What's the problem?
Keep It's been a very long time since I last looked at this, I wanted to write an update/summary since a lot of what I said up top is not actually correct. (for example, I thought that this image used Minecraft's textures when that's not true). This image depicts the central spawn area of a Minecraft world running since 2010 that anyone can join, and over 450,000 distinct players have. Even if just half of those players placed or broke a single block near where they started off, that's over 200,000 people that have contributed to this image. For that reason, I agree with Geni's reasoning above, which is that given the sheer number of contributors, each of which probably only placed a handful of blocks, the image can in general be considered De minimis. In my opinion this image is most closely comparable to a aerial view of a large city, with thousands of structures visible. I did secure a copyright release on the large square and compass, but the design of that is public domain anyway. As we determined above, this image does not use Minecraft's textures; IronException chose just a single color per block for performance reasons for the render. And he released this render for Wikipedia under the proper licenses. And as Geni said, Mojang / Microsoft doesn't own everything created in their programs, this including the small amount of procedurally generated terrain visible along the edges. In conclusion, I agree with what Ferret said above, which is that there's little risk of anyone making a claim on this. Leijurv (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, not actually a screenshot of a game. No unfree textures used, simple 1-color pixels. --Storkk (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Further clarity at the request of BevinKacon: given it is highly likely that no unfree textures were used, for individual players' copyright interests, I was persuaded by a combination of Leijurv's arguments raising COM:DM and an analogy to a satellite view of a city that nobody's copyrights are infringed by this render. Storkk (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)