Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/12/13

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive December 13th, 2019
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files on User:大诺史/OOS

[edit]

Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.

大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files on User:大诺史/OOS

[edit]

Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.

大诺史 (Talk/留言) 12:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files on User:大诺史/OOS

[edit]

Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.

大诺史 (Talk/留言) 12:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: F10. --1989 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files on User:大诺史/OOS

[edit]

Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.

大诺史 (Talk/留言) 02:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: F10. --1989 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Saasen (Reiskirchen)

[edit]

not longer used Wilhelm Völker (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo User:Wivoelke, es ist unklar, worauf sich dieser Löschantrag bezieht. --Achim (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Achim, habe versucht für die Category:Saasen (Reiskirchen) einen Löschantrag zu stellen. Bin aber mit der Anleitung zum Erstellen der Kategorie "Commons:Deletion requests..." nicht klargekommen:

Dieser Löschantrag befindet sich in Category:Incomplete deletion requests, weil er unvollständig ist (du hast keine Unterseite Commons:Deletion requests/Wilhelm Völker (Diskussion) 14:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC). erstellt. BITTE fülle alle fünf Variablen aus und erstelle die Unterseite).

Gruß Wilhelm Völker (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alles klar, danke. Gruß, --Achim (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, empty, author's request. --Achim (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tele-Cable Videotron.png

[edit]

Not used, only a redirection, not a file 220.136.36.133 19:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion; redirects are necessary to preserve attribution and external linkage. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sello conmemorativo de María Moliner.jpg

[edit]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain, stamps become PD 70 years after author's death. No evidence presented that this has been met, therefore not a free image. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Descent The Sea of Blood.jpg

[edit]

I've uploaded it by mistake, please delete Dbelousov (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Moheen at 06:14, 14 Dezember 2019 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 07:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isandy Wiki.png

[edit]

vandalismo Aitorembe (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Merobrown (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: Commons is not your personal free web host. --Achim (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by RickVulcan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No permission, see [1]

大诺史 (Talk/留言) 10:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: All copyright WWE so speedy. --Herby talk thyme 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simone Benini.jpg

[edit]

Copyviol from https://www.lapressa.it/articoli/politica/regionali-ecco-gli-8-nomi-della-lista-modenese-m5s Holapaco77 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination (speedy delete). Ruthven (msg) 22:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:বাদশাহ নামদার হুমায়ূন আহমেদ.jpg

[edit]

বাদশাহ_নামদার_হুমায়ূন_আহমেদ.jpg Wikipediansouravhalder (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: speedy. ~ Nahid Talk 16:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Descent The Road to Legend.jpg

[edit]

I've uploaded it by mistake, please delete Dbelousov (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio at 21:07, 17 Dezember 2019 UTC: CSD G7 (author or uploader request deletion) --Krdbot 01:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Senaki Senakelebii (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal photographs, out of scope.

~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per above. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Me o1.jpg

[edit]

Unused photo of an unknown person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 03:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Oniks 69 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused personal images.

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frank Domayo.jpg

[edit]

Small, low res, no metadata. Unlikely to be own work. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 10:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Зображення viber 2019-10-14 17-24-24.jpg

[edit]

Unused persinal image Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:First logic automation solutions 2013-05-14 16-11.jpg

[edit]

Unused file, Blurred photo of unidentified doorway. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dj Prithvi Jaitsar.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope - personal photographs of user with negligible global contributions ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Pijuah (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:SCOPE?

Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, out of COM:SCOPE. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A blank black picture.jpg

[edit]

This is not black RGB 0,0,0 but it is RGB 11,11,11 and this may confuse users. Tommasov891 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:પા૧૭૯થી વૈષ્ણવ વંશવૃક્ષ.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ultrazvuk a jeho využití v medicíne.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) 16:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ultrazvuk a jeho využití v medicíne.pdf

[edit]

nahrazen novým souborem Ivana Drabiková (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Student AUP Final Approved.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Kolitas10 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fenomen Cast.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fenomen Cast II.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kurosu-uchibori-150-ml.jpg

[edit]

COM:PACKAGING Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Gudiva (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:PACKAGING

Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Benetembry (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Authorship of uploader in doubt: no EXIF data, partly small resolution.

Leyo 10:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Calisthenics Greece (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Percepciones 10.jpg

[edit]

Historical painting. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Senaki Senakelebi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins Cheerleader (36316322514).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once you release it under that license, it remains available under it. SecretName101 (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason you'd like to see it removed from Commons? SecretName101 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, even though the file was removed, it has passed the license review, and CC license is non-revocable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hair (5379918206).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Papa Johns Pizza (3081060175).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 01.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 02.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 03.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 04.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 05.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 06.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 07.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 08.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 09.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 10.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 11.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 12.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 13.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (8526140703).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (8520811678).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (8519725605).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (3096762009).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (3064680023).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (3064679765).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 19.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 18.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 17.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 16.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 15.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep This received a Flickr review on 12 June 2010 confirming the indicated license. CC-by-SA licenses are not revocable, and this is not eligible for courtesy deletion by virtue of age. Эlcobbola talk 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Redskins cheerleader @ game vs New England Patriots 14.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (8527138856).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (8527259064).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (8527345248).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (8527348050).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (8527396888).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl (8527406362).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girl - Philadelphia 76ers at Washington Wizards March 3, 2013.jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (2460289017).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (3069577501).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (3070412164).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (3070413820).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (3081061583).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (3315704410).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (3352323465).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2311260228).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2311334752).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2334048467).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mountie! (7846666346).jpg

[edit]

Unused personal vacation photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Yorkisx (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Bulk copyvio upload - all low res, many lacking EXIF (those with EXIF have numerous disparate cameras - e.g. Canon EOS 650D, Canon EOS 550D, Canon PowerShot SX40 HS, SONY, DSC-H70, Canon PowerShot A710 IS, etc.) and most (all?) from elsewhere on web before upload (e.g. File:Puli-masanori-buddha.jpg is here; File:Taihu Guanyin Temple.jpg is here; File:Taihu Guanyin Temple Yrk.jpg is here; etc.) Quack!

Эlcobbola talk 21:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Approved2.png

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jason-Zadrozny.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (4062968804).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (4076485437).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (4086969487).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (4087029289).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (4087740788).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (4104337237).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5511395528).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5511392286).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5510795185).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5510795957).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5511404200).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5510810103).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5510798415).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5510799299).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5511405244).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5511413742).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (5511415230).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (6817334844).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (6817337652).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (6817386492) (3).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (6820772160).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (6820774314).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (6963429681).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (6963446629).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (6963455611).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (8519532329).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (8519678723).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (8520723136).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (8520795974).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (8521656876).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizard Girls (8527265148).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Cheerleader (4077261198).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Cheerleader (5203053027).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Cheerleader (5501525808).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Cheerleader and G-Wiz (5500928299).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Cheerleaders (2453722877).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Cheerleaders (2454531612).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Cheerleaders (5500929655).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Cheerleaders (5501525198).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dance Team (2310393359).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310372273).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310386033).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310387591).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310424335).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310428997).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310497701).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310527557).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310528541).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310529647).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310530789).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2310531063).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2311209508).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards dancer (2311233728).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2334048741).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2334048957).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2334058911).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2334059281).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2334852840).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3065518688).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards dancer (3065518398).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards dancer (3064691557).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3064678833).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2455634616).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2447856538).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2447805316).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2334875392).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (2334874382).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3065529320).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3065529566).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3065529854).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3086613556).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3096761527).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3314883019).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3314883509).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3315710570).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (3348742685).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (4116206655).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5203720902).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5273275616).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5276004893).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5276054595).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ofeojoto (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5388851649).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5389180817).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5389470868).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5389784454).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5417251419).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493277265).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493276767).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493266743).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493265377).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493260847).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493229627).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5493228547).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5481282332).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Washington Wizards Dancer (5417252557).jpg

[edit]

Author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. License cannot be revoked. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeremy Corbyn Bahrain 3.png

[edit]

Small, blurred and unused image A1Cafel (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment - as the uploader I wouldn't be upset for it to vanish, it came from a time we were desperate for any half decent photo of Corbyn. But do we have a policy to delete non-great quality, small, unused photos? Surely there would be very many of those. Rwendland (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Low quality photos of User:Guptaele and others. I see that there are few more images in the category, so I believed that this image can be replaced by other alternatives. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I see no indication that this image was used in the past. When it was uploaded in September 2015, there were already better images of Corbyn used in English Wikipedia's article (as it appeared on 23 September 2015), and there are actually several better images of exactly the same Bahrain event where this is from in Category:Jeremy Corbyn in 2013. So, although I don't see a pressing need to delete this apparently correctly licensed image, I do understand the view that we don't need it, and as A1Cafel did go to the length of nominating it for deletion, I delete it now. But I would suggest to focus deletion requests on images that are more of a problem than this one. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paul Dorrell Pic.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work, taken in 2011, uploaded in 2019. Anyway needs permission from the artist Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: @Gbawden: Although the fairly large resolution and full Exif data are actually indicative of own work (it's not that unusual that an image is uploaded years after it was taken), it would indeed need permission from the artist for the work depicted, so deleted. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeremy Corbyn with David Hallam, in Shropshire, July 2017.png

[edit]

Small, blurred and unused image A1Cafel (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Not all "small, blurred and unused" images are comparable cases. It also depends on the extent of the smallness and blurriness, for example. Your example File:NOBILE.jpg was a much more extreme case than this one, just 49 x 81 pixels in size. This one is of acceptable size and is actually a crop of File:Jeremy Corbyn in his native Shropshire 2017, meeting local councillor Beryl Mason and former MEP, David Hallam.png (by the same uploader), apparently with the intention of focussing on David Hallam and Jeremy Corbyn; we don't seem to have other images of the two of them together, so the image is of some value. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boletín 2017.jpg

[edit]

Seems to be a book cover. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 10:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; book cover with unclear licensing status. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fzmas tit.png

[edit]

Unused file of unrecognizable object. No meaningful description. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peinture huile jean terles.jpg

[edit]

Bogus self claim. Per description, painting is by Jean Terles, who died 1976. France is pma + 70, so not PD until 01.01.2047 (1976+70+1). Эlcobbola talk 17:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Südvorstadt-Ost, Dresden, Germany - panoramio (1620).jpg

[edit]

Bad image quality Derbrauni (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Has no identifiable content, just some blurry shapes. --Gestumblindi (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Noorwegen 054 (9299817754).jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama for sculptures in Norway 4ing (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ajahn Brahm Kathina Day.jpg

[edit]

Based on the image description, appears to be mis-licensed - it's a non-commercial/non-deriv image Ytoyoda (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: It seems you are right. --Lee (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ООО БЛАНКО РУС Лицензия лого.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:OTRS should be used instead. Ambiguous terms of use. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GeNienne (6963518091).jpg

[edit]

author request, I no longer have on Flickr and it is no longer available under a Creative Commons license Keithallisonphoto (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy  Keep First why are dozens of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per tm. Tl;dr: Licensing is irrevocable. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: sorry the license is irrevocable. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Veliko Tarnovo tétragrammisation.jpg

[edit]

I made an error in choosing the license (I asked the author and he will give an authorization for wikimedia but does not want to allow commercial use). GeneH7 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Impressions américaines soleil couchant.jpg

[edit]

I made an error in choosing the license (I asked the author and he will give an authorization for wikimedia but does not want to allow commercial use). GeneH7 (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lisbonne panoramique2 copie.jpg

[edit]

I made an error in choosing the license (I asked the author and he will give an authorization for wikimedia but does not want to allow commercial use). GeneH7 (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stabula ex.jpg

[edit]

I made an error in choosing the license (I asked the author and he will give an authorization for wikimedia but does not want to allow commercial use). GeneH7 (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:346110 screenshots 20191107172411 1.jpg

[edit]

Screenshot from a presumably copyrighted game MPF (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fenomen.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zapletalová Zdenka - REALITY PRORADOST HOLEŠOV.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brasil Logotipo Duelo.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brvct2.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DdlS2.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BigBrotherBrasil18.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bbb18.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Class room in Virtual Reality.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:C-AVR.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 20:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Passogavia0002.jpg

[edit]

Lower resolution than https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brescia_gavia1.jpg, otherwise the same. GeXeS (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the higher resolution image on Passogavia0002.jpg and deleted the Brescia_gavia1.jpg because Passogavia0002.jpg is uploaded by the original author and Brescia_gavia1.jpg was uploaded by a bot. Amada44  talk to me 21:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: file was by author. deleted the other file. --Amada44  talk to me 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MediaWiki.png

[edit]

Recently uploaded PNG that is redundant to File:MediaWiki.svg 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 10:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 21:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Monkey eating banana like this yum chomp mmm yum.jpg

[edit]

Previously published on various websites, see TinEye. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 12:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 21:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Monkey staring at the camera.jpg

[edit]

Previously published on various websites, see TinEye 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 12:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44  talk to me 21:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ethan In the cab of a Bullied.jpg

[edit]

Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: There is no evidence of this file being a copyvio. --Amada44  talk to me 21:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:34070 Manston 2019.jpg

[edit]

Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: There is no evidence of this file being a copyvio. --Amada44  talk to me 21:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Врубель Михаил на премьере фильма "Притяжение".jpg

[edit]

https://www.kinobusiness.com/freeze-frame/590/ (полная или частичная публикация в средствах массовой информации, включая прессу, телевидение, радио и Интернет, возможна только с письменного разрешения редакции.) Iruka13 (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gas explosion and fire house in Prešov 19 Slovakia 29.jpg

[edit]

Rights violation, the uploader writes he have taken the file from social media ("Vlastní dílo digitalizácia videa zo sociálnej siete") Juandev (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gas explosion and fire house in Prešov 19 Slovakia 30.jpg

[edit]

Rights violation, the uploader writes he have taken the file from social media ("Vlastní dílo digitalizácia videa zo sociálnej siete") Juandev (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gas explosion and fire house in Prešov 19 Slovakia 31.jpg

[edit]

Rights violation, the uploader writes he have taken the file from social media ("Vlastní dílo digitalizácia videa zo sociálnej siete") Juandev (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gas explosion and fire house in Prešov 19 Slovakia 32.jpg

[edit]

Rights violation, the uploader writes he have taken the file from social media ("Vlastní dílo digitalizácia videa zo sociálnej siete") Juandev (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gas explosion and fire house in Prešov 19 Slovakia 33.jpg

[edit]

Rights violation, the uploader writes he have taken the file from social media ("Vlastní dílo digitalizácia videa zo sociálnej siete") Juandev (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator.pdf

[edit]

(Nominated by creator.) PDF was distorted. Superseded by File:Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator.jpg. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Signature of Kim Tae-yeon.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Wcam as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Apparently not uploader’s own work as this is a celebrity’s signature. No source, no permission. Not a clear copyright violation. Needs more discussion per Commons:SIG. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I uploaded the file I had no idea at that time about licenses and stuff. If I had remembered to fix that then I would have specified its origin and add the templates {{PD-text}} and {{PD-signature}}. --Suzy Oh  tell me 10:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Regarding Commons:SIG, although there is no information specifically about South Korea, given that signatures are copyright protected in other eastern Asian countries such as Japan, China, and Taiwan, it is reasonable to assume the same for Korea. Nonetheless, missing source information alone is a criteria for speedy deletion (COM:CSD#F5). --Wcam (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then all signatures should be deleted. --Suzy Oh  tell me 15:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam and Suzy Oh: South Korea has threshold of originality laws, the only countries that are listed on Commons:SIG are those with special circumstances that don't meet the information mentioned in the lead. (That being "The usual signature, that reproduces a permanent model and is used by its author as a personal identification, bears no artistic significance. Its legal status is similar to that of a brand or logo: it may be reproduced, as long as the reproduction cannot be mistaken for an authentic signature.") For SK the law, at COM:TOO South Korea, is "'"Work' refers to a creation that expresses human thoughts or feelings." The examples of what meets this requirement are at ICLG, though it's non-exhaustive (though it does mention that ideas themselves aren't copyrighted, and the examples of thoughts/feelings are artworks). I don't think saying "these are other East Asian countries" without research is fair because being from the same region doesn't mean they have the same governments. China's laws have to do with the calligraphy of Chinese characters which doesn't apply to SK, and in Japan, only calligraphic signatures aren't OK (which this obviously isn't). The sourcing issue can be solved as this is from Taeyeon... she's the source, but I can look for specific links. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 07:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielleTH: Thanks for your opinion. On Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea under section "Types of protected work", calligraphy is listed as an example of protected work. This is based on Article 4 of the Korean copyright act. In my opinion, the creator clearly puts some thoughts into the design of their signature which reflects a substantial degree of creativity.--Wcam (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Wcam and the PCP. Considering that calligraphy is protected, it is quite possible that an "artistic" signature like this would also be found to be protected. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cure Chocolat kigurumi from KiraKira PreCure À La Mode (34276587251).jpg

[edit]

why not? ? Hello! I'm Nyami! (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Nick (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cure Chocolat kigurumi from KiraKira PreCure À La Mode (34276587251).jpg

[edit]

Reason is "Copyright violation. Derivative works of copyrighted characters." File has remained for five months after deletion request. ミラP 01:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There is no FOP in Japan per above. Regards, Jkg1997 (talk • contribs • CA) 17:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Jkg1997. --Hanooz 12:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Maltaper/Agnolo Bronzino

[edit]

my personal page, transfered to the page in Category:Catalogs of art by men — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltaper (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 Dec 2019 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination, own user space. --Achim (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VCTec.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unused logo, out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TanguitaRTS.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unused logo, out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logoeeg-nero.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unused logo, out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:3M profile0.png

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unused logo, out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:O Outro Lado do Paraíso.jpg

[edit]

unlikely to be own work Esprit Fugace (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-textlogo, in use. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Västar från BSK WP OCH WT. 01.jpg

[edit]

Copyright problem - image is screenshot, uploader claims unknown photographer Tournesol (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Västar från BSK WP OCH WT. 02.jpg

[edit]

Copyright problem - image is screenshot, uploader claims unknown photographer Tournesol (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Västar från BSK WP OCH WT. 03.jpg

[edit]

Copyright problem - image is screenshot, uploader claims unknown photographer Tournesol (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Adrianoszust98 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No permission.

大诺史 (Talk/留言) 10:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Adrianoszust98 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if in public domain.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Patricient.jpg

[edit]

Looks to be two copyrighted works put together by author, works derived from non free works not permitted. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NSG Alte Leine bei Hannover MG 0531.jpg

[edit]

Copyright holder, as stated in EXIF, is "r Musterer". Permission needed. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 13:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: looks like uploader is the same person in EXIF data, compare the annotation of File:NSG Alte Leine bei Hannover MG 0531.jpg. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carlos Alberto Soriano.jpg

[edit]

Low quality LoganTheWatermelon (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by PierreSelim at 16:48, 5 Januar 2020 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ChalliloLopez --Krdbot 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nude body.jpg

[edit]

Copyright holder, as stated in EXIF, is Spreadtrum. Permission needed. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 14:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --jdx Re: 08:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Η Χριστίνα Μπόμπα στα παρασκήνια του The Voice το 2019.jpg

[edit]

No evidence that the uploader has the rights of the picture. As stated in the source field it is found at https://www.tlife.gr/eidhseis-nea/xristina-mpompa-anypomonei-gia-tin-premiera-tou-the-voice-oi-fotografies-apo-tin-proetoimasia-tis/960393/ —Ah3kal (Talk) 15:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --jdx Re: 08:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Radioaktivita.pdf

[edit]

No terms of use for images used in poster. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Radioaktivita.pdf

[edit]

nahrazen novým souborem Ivana Drabiková (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted by Steinsplitter. --Gbawden (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Ángel Fernández official photo.jpg

[edit]

File not found in source Frodar (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Fernández foto oficial (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Not found in source Frodar (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Fernández - Casa Rosada.jpg

[edit]

Not found in Casa Rosada website, found here Frodar (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Fernández - Sillón presidencial (2).jpg

[edit]

Not found in source Frodar (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fabiolayañez.jpg

[edit]

Cropped from File:Alberto Fernández - Sillón presidencial (2).jpg, file not found in source Frodar (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Fernández - auto presidencial.jpg

[edit]

Not found in Casa Rosada website, found here Frodar (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Fernández - Escalera italia.jpg

[edit]

Found elsewhere on the web but Casa Rosada website Frodar (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Fernández y su hijo.jpg

[edit]

Found elsewhere on the web but Casa Rosada website Frodar (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Fernández - Despacho presidencial (1).jpg

[edit]

Found elsewhere on the web but Casa Rosada website Frodar (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2019-07-28 Lennon Wall in Hong Kong Creative Paradise 06.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted character A1Cafel (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GNTM2016.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio ~ R.T.G 05:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeremy Corbyn security risk.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corbyn Liverpool 1.png

[edit]

No proof of CC license on Youtube A1Cafel (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corbyn Liverpool 2.png

[edit]

No proof of CC license on Youtube A1Cafel (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - I specifically edited this file to record what YouTube page said on copyright in this edit. archive.org does not record YouTube pages, but per COM:GOODFAITH my edit recording what it said should be accepted. Otherwise all images not backed up by archive.org etc will ultimately be deleted on commons. Rwendland (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your arguments only said that there are CC-licensed videos on YouTube, but not all videos on YouTube got the CC license. Still, there is no indication of CC license on the video's page. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I specifically checked the license of this specific video/photo at the time of the edit linked above when I wrote 'marked "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)". copied and pasted from the specific video's page. Rwendland (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Музей історії України у Другій світовій війні.jpg

[edit]

No Freedom of panorama in Ukraine AlexanderVovck (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Національний музей історії України у Другій світовій війні.webm

[edit]

No Freedom of panorama in Ukraine AlexanderVovck (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Печерська гора.jpg

[edit]

No Freedom of panorama in Ukraine AlexanderVovck (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pranas Sederevičius Garden.jpg

[edit]

No FoP in Lithuania, commercial use was disallowed A1Cafel (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Street scene, Alytus Biennial August 2011.jpg

[edit]

No FoP in Lithuania, commercial use was disallowed A1Cafel (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alytus Palimpsest.jpg

[edit]

No FoP in Lithuania, commercial use was disallowed A1Cafel (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Looking at Les Fauves 1981 (detail).jpg

[edit]

James Fitton R.A. died in 1982, still within the 70 p.m.a in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Th (1) HE Abraham Mor Clemis.jpg

[edit]

The photo was published here before it was uploaded to Commons and in larger resolution. There is a copyright notice at the bottom of that page. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stop Motion Art Spaghetti.webm

[edit]

source dead, no lr nor archived Eatcha (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BLVSH all black at home.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 大诺史 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10. Subject has an enwiki article (fairly new and uploader is only contributor), so let's give it seven days. The small size and missing EXIF is an indication of a possibly copyright violation, though. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MarcosDesmotivador.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Patrick Rogel as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10. In use. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Srittau: This random image has nothing to do in the Wikipedia page. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not our decision, see Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - common sense prevails in a few cases. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Cubiste

[edit]

The artist died in 1973

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spotify Logo.png

[edit]

Suspect this wouldn't pass COM:TOO Sweden ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 09:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unnishivapal.png

[edit]

Copyrighted Picture. No Metadata. Low Resolution. There are chances to get good picture of this living person. Uploaded by self. Suggest to delete. Ranjithsiji (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:John McDonnell leadership.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of copyrighted banners A1Cafel (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luger Pistol - Prototype full-auto.jpg

[edit]

Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Skyjumper75 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joseph Kuzi founder of Diamond services.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RW (Bill) Rowed Farewell Speech on his retirement by VV Vodicka 19 August 1976.pdf

[edit]

Historical document. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a speech my late father VV Vodicka gave on the retirement of his colleague RW Rowed. The document is in my personal possession so there are no copyright issues and I'm perturbed that it is marked for deletion without first checking with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogong56 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: text-only, out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Tyr-asd (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No permission, see [2].

大诺史 (Talk/留言) 16:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't understand. What do you mean by "no permission"? As indicated, the mentioned files (except for "SotM 2019 maps book.pdf") were a submitted to the poster track of the "State of the Map" conference 2019. All submissions were required to be openly licensed, if not otherwise stated on the posters themselves: See https://2019.stateofthemap.org/calls/posters/
> The license of the submitted works is considered to be CC BY-SA 4.0, unless noted otherwise on the image.
Similarly, the "SotM 2019 maps book.pdf" was specifically created for the conference by my colleagues Marx and Roussel.
What kind of permission do you need for this?
-- Tyr-asd (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyr-asd: Hi, sorry for the inconvenience. Went to the wrong page. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 17:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 17:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: withdrawn. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by 182AWPA-GS9 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Official symbol. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Non-free insignia, seal or emblem. Jkg1997 (talk • contribs • CA) 17:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simone-Benini-ER.jpg

[edit]

Copyviol from https://www.lapressa.it/articoli/politica/regionali-ecco-gli-8-nomi-della-lista-modenese-m5s Holapaco77 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Fiona Bennett Official (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Apparent copyvios requiring COM:EVID of permission. File:Nosedive Klaus Melenthin.jpg is attributed to "Klaus Melenthin" (description); File:Fiona bennett ulrike schamoni.jpg is attributed to "Ulrike Schamoni" (description and EXIF); and File:FionaBennett©JoachimGern 5926.jpg is attributed to "Joachim Gern" (description and third-party sites). Uploader cannot simultaneously be three people--COM:OTRS from authors required. File:Ben Becker und Fiona Bennett.jpg is clearly a COM:DW photograph of a screen (see Moiré pattern and pixel grid). File:Fiona Bennett d KAP 5 16.jpg previously published here

Эlcobbola talk 17:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Flush.jpg

[edit]

No COM:EVID of permission; see EXIF attribution of "Johannes Frederic Kuehn Photography" Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Borges1984-b-n.jpg

[edit]

Per image itself and EXIF, author is Silvio Fabrykant ≠ Daniellipara (uploader). COM:OTRS evidence of permission from Fabrykant required. Эlcobbola talk 17:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Syria Dabke Dance, Daraa - Dec 23, 2017.webm

[edit]

YouTube account termination, no lr nor archived Eatcha (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khan-saraj.png

[edit]

COM:DW - scan of contemporary painting (see signature in lower left dated 2015). COM:OTRS permission from author needed. Эlcobbola talk 17:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Zhhhuk (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Contemporary paintings purported to be by ru:Бизяева, Алиса Сергеевна - COM:OTRS permission from author needed. (Note ru.wiki article is currently tagged for speedy deletion as non-notable, so possible COM:SCOPE issue too.)

Эlcobbola talk 18:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Best cameras for photography - AUKEY 4K ACTION CAMERA REVIEW.webm

[edit]

This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated. Eatcha (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, failed license review. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MFEok.png

[edit]

Once again, this file has been uploaded and it's a screenshot from a different copyrighted website. Edjoerv (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MartinaLeierova.jpg

[edit]

Discrepancy of authorship statement. In the description, Šárka Rao is stated as the author. However, in the "author" field, the uploader Jan Bernard declares himself as the author and gives his own self-licence. ŠJů (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stephan Dörner 2016.jpg

[edit]

© yeebase media GmbH 2005 - 2019 (https://t3n.de/news/t3n-mitarbeiter-twitter-2-549081/) Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Permission will be sent immediately to the OTRS team. Please do not delete. -- Paul D. L. (t3n) (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure. File deleted by Arthur Crbz on January 12, 2020 Abzeronow (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Education City Stadium under construction.jpg

[edit]

No FOP in Qatar. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 11:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ODESUR2006.jpg

[edit]

Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sara S. Miller's 1994 Bronze Portrait Bust Of Gwendolyn Brooks.jpg

[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama, appears to be a copyrighted artwork Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SoftwarePlant logo.png

[edit]

Out of scope per COM:ADVERT - logo of non remarkable business ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SoftwarePlant is a remarkable business. It has 15k clients, a number in the relatively niche Project portfolio management software industry. The logo was uploaded for this study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martin_DE/sandbox --Martin DE (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is in use, it is in scope here, whilst the draft exists. However, the other problem is licensing. Unless the business emails Commons:OTRS to confirm they have released the image under the stated licence, we can't have the image. Unless, the image is under the threshold of originality. I don't know if the image is simple enough to be public domain in Poland - per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland it seems it's quite a low bar. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed Commons:OTRS to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming that the company released the image under CC Attribution-Share Alike International 4.0 --Martin DE (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 17th Dec 2019 I received the conformation stating 'I have made the necessary modifications to the file page, please verify. Thank you for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons. Yours sincerely,' --Martin DE (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. --Krd 17:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UCP Faculty of Biotechnology.jpg

[edit]

This file was reported as a copyright violation. Cristina Vilela (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was reported by 轻语者 because of https://www.facebook.com/COSTEIRAS/photos/p.2418810158240699/2418810158240699/?type=1&theater. @Cristina Vilela: why should it be kept? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@廣九直通車: I suggest also asking the customer about the other files from this uploader. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: ✓ DoneYes, I have informed the client about other images. Thank you for your notice.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: permission confirmed. --ƏXPLICIT 02:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Иван Клещёв 1.jpg

[edit]

no indication of pre-1946 publication required for PD status in US+Russia PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Иван Клещёв 2.jpg

[edit]

no indication of pre-1946 publication required for PD status in US and Russia PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Анатолій Олександрович Грищинський.jpg

[edit]

https://fakty.ua/223004-na-mashine-mne-peredvigatsya-gorazdo-legche-chem-peshkom-na-kostylyah-v-svoi-96-let-vyezzhayu-na-lanose-po-menshej-mere-tri-raza-v-nedelyu Figure19 (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:QCBC 2019 VIIIs dinner.webp

[edit]

Previously published here, no permission. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 12:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published on the official website, but the media was uploaded to Wikipedia by the photographer  :) 03:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted: Previously published means we need OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smp-1.djvu

[edit]

Book cover seems modern. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Letter of Imam Shamil for Sharif of Mecca, 1871.jpg

[edit]

There is no any source about letter, and it can't be own work if it is real. Sakhalinio (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is drawing of a letter made by me. Here is a original: http://www.gazavat.ru/gazavat/user_files/image/Scan00035.jpg Sheo123 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unused plain text doc, out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seal of Imam Shamil, 1870.jpg

[edit]

There is no any source about letter, and it can't be own work if it is real. Sakhalinio (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is drawing of a letter made by me. Here is a original: http://www.gazavat.ru/gazavat/user_files/image/Scan00035.jpg Sheo123 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unused logo/seal, out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carbon Emissions Per Passenger.png

[edit]

source dubious, points to User:Sophiaforgiz. Aircraft emissions par pax/km is 57-95 gCO², certainly not 285, see en:Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Airlines Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the numbers seem based on very implausible assumptions. A two-wheeler emits more than a large car? Also, the way to represent the relative emissions (with the size of a cloud?) is extremely misleading and non informative. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:The CO2 emissions are calculated per passenger per kilometer (pkm), which means that a diesel fueled two-wheeler with an utilization rate of 1.2 passengers emmits more than a large car with an utilization rate of 4 passengers. If just 1 person would take the car, the emissions would be 220 gr. per passenger km. The same applies to planes. The graphic shows an utilization rate of 88 passengers.]]

Also a two wheeler emits surprisingly much CO2. Most are simple two-stroke engines which are very inefficient. And, as the graphic shows clearly, a car is more often used by multiple passengers than a two wheeler. And I find the size of the cloud a very good representation for getting a good first overview. -Mifritscher (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC) Ah, regarding the 57.92 gC0² thing: your own citation says a medium of 123 g, and CO² is much more dangerous at flying highs than on the ground. Most of the emission comparations use CO² equivalents which take this into account. -Mifritscher (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Overall GHG from Transport.png

[edit]

source dubious, points to User:Sophiaforgiz. File:Carbon Emissions Per Passenger.png uploaded by same user has wrong numbers with no source either Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ivtorov (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely own works. 1940s - 1980s photos, maybe a scanned family album. Also nominated 1920s - 1930s images stated as own work.

Rodrigolopes (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of this photos made by me or belonds to me, I have original films or prints. (Подтверждаю оригинальность этих фотографий) --Ivan Vtorov (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who's owning the physical film is irrelevant. Did you personally take this photo of Alexander Markin in 1930 and and this of Lev Bondarev in 1969? jonkerz ♠talk 00:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ivtorov (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. Фото разных годов, сделаны на разные фотоаппараты. Необходимо пояснение в OTRS

Dogad75 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • подскажите, пожалуйста, какое пояснение к моим фотографиям нужно? Я гарантирую что это мои фото, которые я сделал на плёнку, и цифровые камеры. Могу негативы показать. --Ivan Vtorov (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:OTRS/ru для фоновых картин вчера отправил автор (для File:1998-BogatovEA.jpg, File:2000-BogatovEA.jpg, File:2015-Bogatov-Exhibition.jpg) для других они не требуются. --Ivan Vtorov (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Теперь всё. --Ivan Vtorov (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Speedy keep Пришло разрешение в OTRS и от автора фото и от художника (хотя вопрос был именно к фотографу). Ticket#2017030310014862. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: revoked by nominator - verified via OTRS in the meantime. --Jcb (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ivtorov (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Derivative works of non-free content. No permission.

VLu (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019-NatanS-BookPaper.jpg & File:2019-SimonNatan-INHIGEO.jpg — Photos from Book: S. Natan. Flying high. the Photography of Lloyd Homer, 2019. It is noted in the book: This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism, and review as permitted under the Copyright Act. Images from the book for Russian WikiNews only (https://ru.wikinews.org/?curid=515524). --Ivan Vtorov (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:2019-MiningSchool-SPb6.jpg — {PD-text} citation --Ivan Vtorov (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Fair use is not allowed on Commons. PD-text claim unlikely. --Storkk (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ivtorov (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Random PD tags. If you can't name the author you can't claim that he or she could have died 70 or more years ago. Also, the first publication date is needed to determine copyright status as per COM:Russia.

Quick1984 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stemma familiare.jpg

[edit]

file sbagliato di pagina , volevo inserirlo in un altra e non riesco a rimuoverlo Wikistolife (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: uploader requested within 7 days. --Storkk (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TonAPhoto (1).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Tegel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Uploader doesn'tt match copyright holder in image Metadata Hanooz 21:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The user name of the uploader and the content of the article where the image is used indicate that it's the image object that is the uploader. The Copyright holder in the Metadata is a man in his early 50's. If not a copyvio then permission from the copyright holder is missing. -- Tegel (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: TONY OLDENBURG should confirm the license via OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Openciv-0.95.png

[edit]

These are an odd cases -- the web site from which these came says, "© The Freeciv Project 1996-2019. Freeciv is free and open source software. Freeciv is released under the GNU General Public License, while the Freeciv-web client is released under the GNU Affero General Public License." Fine so far, the software is freely licensed, but the site says nothing about the products of the software -- the game maps we see here. They have copyrights which is held by either the game company or the player(s) who actually created the maps and situations. The file descriptions have virtually no information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep resp. at least keep File:Freeciv-2.0.6.png. I think it's possible to use your own graphics with Freeciv, but these look like maps generated with what comes with Freeciv per default. Also, at least File:Freeciv-2.0.6.png shows a standard world/Europe map. It may not be obvious at a first glance because of the simplified land forms of southern Scandinavia we see in this screenshot, but in the upper left corner, you see which map section is shown (the white rectangle on the map of Europe). At least this screenshot looks to me like "Freeciv as shipped" (in 2005; the game has evolved since then). The fact that you see English, Icelandic and Czech place names in this area where they in reality wouldn't belong is because of the game mechanics. I don't think there is any copyrightable creativity by the player involved in that map. And I assume that the standard map as shown is part of the freely licensed game. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Encik Tekateki (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Unless we have evidence to the contrary, these appear to me to be almost certainly either generated algorithmically by the software itself (thus covered by the GPL license), perhaps with inputs from the player who made the screenshot. The uploader claimed to take the screenshot, so I think it very unlikely any other party would have a copyright claim here. --Storkk (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sinterklaas in de Lage Landen.webm

[edit]

non free music Het Kleinste Huisje (feat. Zangpiet Julio) , identfied by YouTube Eatcha (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version with 0:03-0:09, 7:58-8:23, 9:09-12:42 muted but I've been staring at "Still waiting for server to rebuild uploaded file" for 20 minutes now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Question There is still music in the new version, for example at 5:43, is this all guarenteed copyright-free music? Gestumblindi (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi: that track is an instrumental version of De zak van Sinterklaas. The text of that song can be found in a book with children's rhymes from 1871.[1] The score might (I say might, there is a lot unclear about this) originate from Vroolijk St. Nicolaas-feest: 20 oude en nieuwe St. Nicolaas-liedjes by H.A. Almoes, a compilation of old and new Sinterklaas songs from 192x. Virtually nothing is known about this H.A. Almoes. I could only find this: "Ook een duit in het zakje deed zijn jongere collega H.A. Almoes, die na onderwijzer geweest te zijn in Appingedam en Hilversum, in 1923 hoofd van de Andreas Bonnschool werd en in 1934 van de Ambonschool. Hij publiceerde in 1935 een bundel met Sinterklaasliedjes met muziek, waarin de melodie van Sinterklaas, die goede heer van zijn hand is."[2] which doesn't help and the 1935 date is probably not correct. The drawings on that compilation were made by Daan Hoeksema[3] who passed away in 1935. This song is about on par with Happy Birthday in terms of popularity in the Netherlands, if anyone believed they were entitled to royalties, we'd know. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is perhaps the appropriate tag for this, while we know who is claimed to be the author (well, assuming that actually is H.A. Almoes, which isn't exactly certain), there is no death date and for all we know "H.A. Almoes" could be a pseudonym. That would certainly explain why virtually nothing can be found about this person.. If this would turn out to be technically still protected by copyright, there is literally nobody (literally: zero) in The Netherlands who respects that copyright. Including all major TV-stations, radio stations, distributors of CDs and songbooks and so on who distribute this song to millions of people every single year. I take copyright seriously, but we don't have to be holier than the pope.
Pinging @Vysotsky, Donald Trung. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for the interesting information. This might come across as a "holier-than-the-pope" comment, but what about the rights of the perfomers? There are always performer's rights even if out-of-copyright music is played. The marching band performing the song probably wasn't asked to release their performance under a free license... ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi: that's yet another interesting question. These rights are w:nl:Naburige rechten which expire 50 years after publication. However, "De inning en verdeling van de vergoedingen worden uitgevoerd door organisaties die door de overheid zijn aangewezen." (government appointed organizations collect and distribute the money for performer's rights) So the money would have to be paid to w:nl:Stichting ter Exploitatie van Naburige Rechten. Minor issue: a marching band is highly unlikely to have signed up with SENA. So your money wouldn't even go to the marching band, it would go to.. errr.. I don't know, w:nl;Boef (rapper) maybe. ("boef" means "criminal" btw) Also, SENA is a bunch of bastards.[4] So, yes, holier than the pope if you pay for that. These laws were clearly not made for marching bands.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the jovial spirit of holier-than-the-pope arguments, related rights (naburige rechten) are separate from auteursrecht in The Netherlands as far as I can tell. That would make them a non-copyright restriction, which (like trademarks) we don't care about. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I think I don't agree with your assessment that this kind of related rights is treated like trademarks on Commons. If this were the case, we could, for example, freely upload performances by the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra of works by Mozart or Beethoven, as these are "only" protected by related rights. Which, as far as I know, is not something we do or would accept? ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi: it's indeed not how Commons usually treats related rights. Note that Both authors' rights and related rights are copyrights in the sense of English or U.S. law. I've just wasted my time to mute it. Wasted, because not a soul in the world cares. Including the souls of the marching band. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that trademarks are allowed on Wikimedia Commons (See: "{{Trademarked}}"), trademarks are generally not protected by copyright laws. Also I am not sure how different a performance of a public domain song has to be to create new copyright ©, if at all, so I am not of much use here as I am too busy to do much research into this topic at the moment. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: no copyright imho, but there are performer's rights. (naburige rechten) Though the marching band will never see a dime from that and SENA is a boevenbende[4], but the rights exist. So I muted it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Unfree music muted, no clear copyvios left. --Indeedous (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fermons les abattoirs - manifestation à Paris.webm

[edit]

Copyrighted music identified by YouTube Eatcha (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Indeedous (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Austin Abrams 2018.png

[edit]

Non-free screen capture uploaded improperly to Commons TAnthony (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

File:Austin Abrams 2018.png

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Keep
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Indeedous (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files found with Special:Search/insource:flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital

[edit]

COM:LL, these all contain artworks lifted from different stock sites such as Shutterstock and other places, no evidence uploader can relicense such works under a free license.

BevinKacon (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BevinKacon: How do you know these files contain artwork from stock sites? —Granger (talk  · contribs) 23:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The few that provide the sources say so, File:Record Breaking Tornadoes.jpg, File:Yucca Mountain - Nuclear Waste Repository.jpg.--BevinKacon (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not an expert at all but the File:Masdar City infographic.jpg says in the file notes: "It was reviewed on 13 January 2019 by FlickreviewR 2 and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0." Is that not applicable? 100.15.191.97 02:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this. I checked and indeed the backgound image of Record Breaking Tornadoes is from Shutterstock. For the Yucca Mountain - Nuclear Waste Repository, only the lower 10% part of the image is from Shutterstock, so the rest (and usefull part) of the image can be kept. How should this be done? Via CropTool? It is not because some have background images from Shutterstock that all of them should be removed. Most of them don't have background images. --PJ Geest (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here an overview:
1) I have uploaded a new version of following files to make sure there is no violation of license (old version of file should be removed):

2) Can be removed (clear licence violation):

3) Unclear if there is a license violation (where the images come from), so up to discussion if these files should be removed or not:

--PJ Geest (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know which elements are original or stolen, only the cropped File:Yucca Mountain - Nuclear Waste Repository.jpg can have Template:PD-textlogo tag and be safely kept.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed more art work from the images and I think more of them (if not all) of category 1 do not reach the threshold of originality --PJ Geest (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept batch 1, batch 2 already deleted, deleted batch 3. --Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Asurnipal (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These signs contain copyrighted text. In Austria, there is no FoP for text, so these infringe on the authors copyrights.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (Jameslwoodward) 22:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jameslwoodward. Before submitting requests for deletion, I would like to ask you to familiarize yourself with the legal regulations in Austria. It would also be good to write to me first. In Austria there is a very comprehensive right to depict objects that are permanently installed in public space. Your request for deletion is unfounded. BR, Asurnipal (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BevinKacon, Your own argument speaks against your point of view COM:FOP Austria: "works created to remain permanently at a public place, for example memorials". BR, Asurnipal (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El Grafo, see to your question: § 42f Abs. 2 Urheberrechtsgesetz Österreich. BR, Asurnipal (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: three files, delete the first and last per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 07:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Asurnipal (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These are architectural works, art works, and text that are under copyright in Luxembourg. Since there is no Freedom of Panorama exception in Luxembourg, all of these images infringe on the copyrights belonging to their creators. Anticipating a question, I will additionally note that works of taxidermy generally have a copyright as sculptures.


70 files
* File:Luxembourg-Steinfort Cultural Center-23ASD.jpg

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jameslwoodward.
The Steinforter ironworks, today's cultural center Steinfort, was built in 1846. The building is not subject to copyright protection, as there was no copyright protection at that time. Your request for deletion is therefore completely unfounded. I ask you to look into copyright protection in Luxembourg before you file a request for deletion. It is also incorrect that there is no FoP in Luxembourg. This claim by you only shows that you have not informed yourself beforehand.
The fact that you already made a completely wrong and, in my opinion, partisan decision regarding the file: Luxembourg-Steinfort-sculpture human being-02ASD.jpg does not make things any better in relation to these deletion requests.
Regarding the pictures from the museums, I inquired in every museum and received the message that these pictures may be published, specifically with this consent especially on Wikimedia. If necessary, I will obtain this consent in writing and provide it if everyone does not believe this oral explanation.
As for the other claims of yours, I see, since requests for deletion were made only on my pictures (and not on similar ones from other photographers that also exist), that your deletion requests are obviously selective deletion requests and you are on a mission. Of course it is also clear to me that due to your position here I have no chance of an objective review and my explanations are here "for the cat", because you will enforce your opinion. Too bad. Its bad for Wikipedia for this because images are deleted due to ignorance. BR, Asurnipal (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So that we don't get ourselves wrong. I don't mind that you made the requests for deletion. It bothers me that you have no idea about Luxembourgish and Austrian law, just making claims, probably based on an article on copyright in an abbreviated version in Wikipedia. Alone your claim that "there is no FoP in Luxembourg" shows this. Copyright law in particular is an extremely difficult subject that can only lead to a correct assessment by lawyers if the teaching and case law are known. And even then, there are often multiple opinions that may all be correct and often only one court can actually find a copyright infringement. I also don't know many Wikipedians who can actually correctly interpret copyright law in Luxembourg and Austria. But there will certainly be a few who have no idea about it, who in turn copy from Wikipedia and will agree with you. That is what annoys me. BR. Asurnipal (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is quite a collection of very different subjects and copyright situations (2D/3D; visual arts/text; indoor/outdoor) that need to be evaluated individually. No wonder nobody worked on this fopr half a year. Suggest to close this request and re-nominate in smaller batches. --El Grafo (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... please do not forget that FoP is generally not to be applied to works for which the museum management or others has previously approved the publication. Jameslwoodward overlooked this right from the start and didn't even ask, he just opened this construction site.
  • Too many images to check them all. Some images are clearly problematic (showing interior or exterior modern architecture) while others look fine.
File:Luxembourg-Schengen-Church St Sauveur-Cementery-02ASD.jpg is a gravestone. The most recent year of death is 1874. I'd imagine that the gravestone was made either in 1843 (when the first guy died) or in 1874 (when the second guy died). It's probably an anonymous work, and the author has probably been dead for at least 70 years.
File:Luxembourg-Schengen-EU-Museum-25ASD.jpg shows a border post (rock) which obviously isn't copyrightable. The big sign should be {{PD-FinlandGov}}. No idea about the smaller one.
File:Luxembourg-Steinfort Cultural Center-17ASD.jpg shows a building. While the original building might be in the public domain, the glass & metal entrance looks new and might make the image not OK for Commons.
File:Luxembourg-Schengen-EU-Museum-04ASD.jpg shows arrangement of furniture. Does this count as 'architecture' making it a copyvio?
I suggest splitting this up in smaller batches. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no consensus. Files should be nominated separately. --ƏXPLICIT 07:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ↑ https://www.ensie.nl/sinterklaaslexicon/sint-nicolaasliederen
  2. ↑ https://muizenest.nl/2017/10/01/1-oktober-jan-schenkman/
  3. ↑ https://verzameloord.blogspot.com/2014/11/
  4. ↑ a b https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/opinie/column/2606331/sta-op-tegen-verstuurder-van-valse-facturen-sena
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2019/12/13&oldid=433028794"