Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/07/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Removal of personal information per these edits. Not in use. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am big on privacy. But, because of that, I think people abuse "what about my privacy" far to much. Dude posted his private information "tagarimix
gmail.com 757-238-0637" to a public site (also available on his website) and he claims he wants privacy? here, here, here, and so many more. how can he claim privacy! Quakewoody (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10 (personal photos of or by non-contributors). --Wdwd (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
file:richard burton 2606:A000:1005:C6B5:6407:68F1:72B8:B6F7 12:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TriverseWiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]spam and copyright and com:scope and no source and no permission
- File:Rohit Reddy Profile.jpg
- File:RohitReddy.jpg
- File:Rohit-Reddy-Raj-shirt.jpg
- File:Signature-one-banjarahills.jpg
- File:Rapid with rohit.jpg
- File:Rohit-Reddy-Blac.jpg
- File:Rohit-Reddy.jpg
Wvdp (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Anushka Raj Baby 2401:4900:3B02:CD5A:98C5:A224:3AC:14E6 14:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Possible Copyright Violation DrToast666 (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, per g7. --Túrelio (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
03310204111 111.119.187.57 19:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense. --Achim (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
copyright not provided Oregondean (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 15:15, 27 Juli 2020 UTC: Copyright violation: Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. --Krdbot 02:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.tnnthailand.com/content/21501/gallery/2 Wvdp (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 14:44, 27 Juli 2020 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1) --Krdbot 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
https://versionfinal.com.ve/vivir/valentina-figuera-se-convierte-en-la-primera-venezolana-en-ganar-el-miss-grand-international/ Wvdp (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 14:44, 27 Juli 2020 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1) --Krdbot 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.newtv.co.th/news/46454 Wvdp (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 14:44, 27 Juli 2020 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1) --Krdbot 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_body_Chile_2011.png Tanromero (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as there is no association betwenn these images. --Túrelio (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
There was a lot of hustle around this file; for that reason I took off the CR vio tag so that it can be discussed once again and deleted or kept for good. I have no personal preferences though... E4024 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think that it deserves been deleted. I took it from another place and posted as an own work. sorry--CharlesMariano2021 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just wait. No problem. --E4024 (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Image looks most unlikely to have been created by user, and was uploaded from a blog. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Basically promotional as far as I can see and gone thanks. --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Image shows a poster from a festival. Seems most unlikely that copyright belongs to the uploading user. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Basically promotional (as other contribs) so gone. --Herby talk thyme 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Low-quality 3D-model in small resolution & bad geometry. Have File:Methyl-formate-3D-vdW.png as high-quality replacement. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 19:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete. This is a different w:conformation than the others (skewed rather than planar), but it's also not a realistic one. The global minimum is cis planar and the other major local minimum is trans planar with respect to the carbonyl/methyl, per doi:10.1016/0022-2860(77)85014-X among other publications. DMacks (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Info.promedia.ro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logo; account created for PR.
- File:Color123.jpg
- File:Erretrytrytryt.jpg
- File:Descărcare4.png
- File:FullColor IconOnly 1280x1024 72dpi.jpg
Gikü (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AbdullahAnimator (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a photo album. Out of scope.
- File:Abdullah Al Mahmud Animator.jpg
- File:Abdullah Al Mahmud.Animator.jpg
- File:Abdullah Al Mahmud Animation Administrator.jpg
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 08:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Faizan Ansari 1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a photo album. Out of scope.
- File:Faizan Ansari Mumbai Minister.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari Jerry Wonda.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari Varun Dhawan.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari Sunny Leone.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari Jasleen Matharu.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari 786.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari 12.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari 1.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari Neil Nitin Mukesh.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari Sonali Bendre.jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari .jpg
- File:Faizan Ansari.jpg
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 08:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohon Chanda (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a photo album. Out of scope.
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 08:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yogeshgudikar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a photo album. Out of scope.
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 08:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Musa lawi mafolo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk Mail 10:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Musa lawi mafolo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a photo album. Out of scope.
- File:Beach new pic 5.jpg
- File:Beach new pic 6.jpg
- File:Beach new pic 3.jpg
- File:Beach new pic 2.jpg
- File:Beach new pic 1.jpg
- File:Beach new pic 1 black.jpg
- File:Looking hand.jpg
- File:Musalawi's logo.png
- File:Musa Lawi 2019.jpg
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 08:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Faishalraza319 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a photo album. Out of scope.
- File:Faishal Raza (Civil Engineer) .jpg
- File:Faishal Raza at Barasra.jpg
- File:Faishal Raza in Barasra, Siwan City .jpg
- File:Faishal Raza .jpg
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 08:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Commons is not a photo album. Out of scope.
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 09:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Prince Murmu (talk · contribs)
[edit]self promo on en.wp
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 09:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The files are various images from different external sources. However, the uploader gives no concrete source links (such as typing only "Unspalsh", "Pexels.com"). As a result, the copyright status of the images cannot be verified, and the files should be deleted if no source are given.
- File:Photo-of-people-doing-handshakes-3184416 (1).jpg
- File:Photo-of-people-doing-handshakes-3184416.jpg
- File:Birdie (3).jpg
- File:Bird-perched-on-tree-branch-2961876 (2).jpg
- File:HummingBird with filter.jpg
- File:Asus Zenbook 15.webp
- File:Asus Zenbook 14.webp
- File:KAM Logo 2.png
- File:Austin-distel-VCFxt2yT1eQ-unsplash 04 (3).jpg
- File:KA Monthly.png
- File:Austin-distel-VCFxt2yT1eQ-unsplash 05.jpg
- File:Austin-distel-VCFxt2yT1eQ-unsplash 04.jpg
- File:Austin-distel-VCFxt2yT1eQ-unsplash 01.jpg
- File:Austin-distel-VCFxt2yT1eQ-unsplash 02.jpg
- File:Mountain-surrounded-with-fog-1772973 (1) (3).jpg
- File:Mountain-surrounded-with-fog-1772973 (1) (1).jpg
- File:White-and-red-flag-1093645 (1) (2).jpg
- File:Abraham Lincoln KA.jpg
- File:Liberty Statue KA.jpg
- File:Empire State Building KA.jpg
- File:Mountain-surrounded-with-fog-1772973.jpg
- File:Snow-covered-mountain-2086620.jpg
- File:Snow-cap-pine-tree-87477.jpg
- File:Red-and-white-tower-under-a-starry-sky-3511571.jpg
- File:Photo-of-trees-across-mountains-under-cloudy-sky-3389536.jpg
- File:Photo-of-snow-field-near-trees-1978126.jpg
- File:Photo-of-snow-capped-mountains-during-daytime-3389530.jpg
- File:Photo-of-mountain-range-covered-with-snow-under-moon-908644.jpg
- File:Man-standing-on-mountain-2406659.jpg
- File:Landscape-photography-of-snowy-mountain-1366919.jpg
- File:Icy-tree-760139.jpg
- File:Houses-on-mountain-2088206.jpg
- File:House-between-body-of-water-and-mountain-1624503.jpg
- File:Green-pine-trees-beside-body-of-water-2086267.jpg
- File:Empty-road-and-pine-trees-on-snowy-field-during-golden-hour-1643773.jpg
- File:Brown-deer-surrounded-with-snow-covered-trees-3563476.jpg
- File:White-and-red-flag-1093645.jpg
- File:Suspension-bridge-3441784.jpg
- File:Photo-of-brooklyn-bridge-new-york-2260783.jpg
- File:High-rise-building-1400249.jpg
- File:Flag-of-america-1590766.jpg
- File:Aerial-photography-of-metropolitan-area-2100018.jpg
- File:Curtain-wall-buildings-under-blue-cloudy-sky-53212.jpg
- File:Smartwatch icon.png
廣九直通車 (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files of User:BARABASH
[edit]I propose all their contribution for deletion. Most of the files are kinda local codeheads' memes, the rest is own artworks of no aesthetical and educational value. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- File:Дорисовать2.png
- File:1sceer.png
- File:Дорисовать.png
- File:БезымянныйNAME.png
- File:Обед.jpg
- File:СменаБ.jpg
- File:Объект2.png
- File:КлиентсМАК.png
- File:Перерыв.png
- File:Зарплатамарт.png
- File:ОшибкаАРМ.jpg
- File:МБ.png
- File:Декодировании.jpg
- File:MAC OS.jpg
- File:Бухгалтер.jpg
- File:ИП.jpg
- File:Запрос.jpg
- File:Нужна помощь.jpg
- File:МаАнж.jpg
- File:Бесполезный сотрудник.jpg
- File:Заппросить сертификат.jpg
- File:Закрываю.jpg
- File:Парольсертификат.jpg
- File:MACplagin.jpg
- File:Обрезок.png
- File:Клик.jpg
- File:Запрос4905.jpg
- File:Дорисуй меня.jpg
- File:Вживую.jpg
- File:Созданиеклиентов.jpg
- File:Создайте пап.jpg
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Entrepreneursofthefuture (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused promo materials of company of questionable notability.
- File:Libro La Tenacidad De Una Mente Millonaria.jpg
- File:Gregorio Punzano - Brand.jpg
- File:Gregorio Punzano - Entrepreneur.jpg
- File:EX10 - Real Estate.jpg
- File:Real estate spain ex10 impact investing.jpg
- File:Aspalete Prototype.jpg
- File:Aspalete.jpg
- File:MCWATCHESCO. Watch.jpg
- File:MCWATCHESCO.jpg
- File:Firma Gregorio Punzano.png
- File:Gregorio Punzano.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a photo album. Out of scope.
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam 12.jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam 23.jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam 123.jpg
- File:RAJU VAMSHARAJ WITH BIG TIGERS (37).jpg
- File:RAJU VAMSHARAJ RVR KING WITH BIG TIGER VIDEO (36).jpg
- File:RAJU VAMSHARAJ RVR KING WITH BIG TIGER VIDEO (12).jpg
- File:RAJU VAMSHARAJ RVR KING WITH BIG TIGER VIDEO (10).jpg
- File:RAJU VAMSHARAJ RVR KING WITH BIG TIGER VIDEO (5).jpg
- File:31 Untitled-1HHHHHHHHHHH.jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam 5.jpg
- File:19 king song make (8).jpg
- File:13 king song make (16).jpg
- File:7king song make (20).jpg
- File:3IMGP NG.png
- File:5king song make (10).jpg
- File:2 RAJU VAMSHARAJ RVR KING WITH BIG TIGER VIDEO (39)1111.jpg
- File:2 RAJU VAMSHARAJ RVR KING WITH BIG TIGER VIDEO (9).jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam1.jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam 77.png
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam 88.jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam 78.jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam 98.jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam.jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam kh.jpg
- File:1 K 67410600 2529546550413216 5793830832703537152 oAA.jpg
Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 15:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raju Vamsharaj - RVR King India Chindam (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SCOPE/COM:NOTHOST - low quality, unused, uploaded for self-promotion
- File:1 నేను కె.సి.ఆర్ అభిమానిని మల్లేష్ వంశరాజ్ యువసేన A.png
- File:మల్లేష్ వంశరాజ్ యువసేన S.jpg
- File:Raju Vamsharaj (RVR) King రాజు వంశరాజ్ ( ఆర్ వి ఆర్ uu.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Not own work, probably a screenshot Gbawden (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nguyenngochoa.dn (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claim of own work, one is from FB per MD, the other is widely available on the web. PCP
Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:La Coupole
[edit]Derbre's sculpture as well as the roof frescos are under copyright
- File:A la Coupole.JPG
- File:Interior of La Coupole, Paris - 2011.JPG
- File:Paris.- La Coupôle Artdéco (2).jpg
- File:Paris.- La Coupôle Artdéco (7).jpg
— Racconish 💬 10:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by María Carrizo (talk · contribs)
[edit]The captions in the article on eswiki show that these are images from films and not own work.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mourad Tlemcani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wikipedian1997. (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low res, no camera EXIF, visual characteristics suggest pictures of a pictures. COM:PRP issue.
Эlcobbola talk 15:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Doesn't seem to be realistically useful for an educational purpose at this point. w:fa:پونیشیر was speedy deleted on fawiki. Ahmadtalk 15:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, self-promotion. Ahmadtalk 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, available elsewhere, and possibly out of COM:SCOPE. Ahmadtalk 15:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; photograph of non-notable person. Ahmadtalk 15:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Found elsewhere by using Google search by image/TinEye, unlikely to be own work. Ahmadtalk 15:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ملانصرالکفر (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work; historical photos that are available elsewhere. Not clear if the copyright has expired.
- File:Hassan-ziaz.jpg
- File:CYMERA ۲۰۲۰۰۷۲۴ ۱۵۵۷۱۹.jpg
- File:پرونده عباس مفتاحی.jpg
- File:خسرو گلسرخی.jpg
- File:صمد.png
Ahmadtalk 15:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- How are you so sure they are "unlikely to be own work"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sicaspi (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Sicaspi: Three of them are available here. If the user is the photographer, they should send an email to the OTRS and release these photos under a free license.
- As for File:خسرو گلسرخی.jpg, there is no indication of publication under a free license on the source, and it's not usually likely for such an old photograph to be licensed under a license like CC-BY-SA 4.0, the default license on Commons and a relatively new license.
- This leaves us with just File:صمد.png, which is claimed to be own work. However, based on COM:PCP, if the uploader's "own work" claim is not credible and a photo is not unlikely to be a copyvio, it's possible to delete it.
- In addition, the creation dates are inaccurate. The creation year of all of them is claimed to be 2020, except for File:خسرو گلسرخی.jpg, which is 2014. Regardless, the date is obviously inaccurate. Ahmadtalk 15:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE - COM:SELFIE DannyS712 (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Photo of photo, missing original author, date, source, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Apparent COM:NETCOPYVIOs - low res, no EXIF, elsewhere before Commons (e.g., File:White stiletto high-heels.jpg is here, etc.) Duck/COM:PRP issue. See also numerous heel related copyvios by user's sock.
Эlcobbola talk 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maria-Linn (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
just gona leave this here: https://www.grandhotel-hessischerhof.com/
-- Wvdp (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Personal picture of not-noticeable underage persone (15 y.o.) - Useless for educational purpose, out of project scope L736E (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 15:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, available elsewhere, possibly out of COM:SCOPE. Ahmadtalk 15:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 15:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of project scope! Ras67 (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Without a more useful name or description (Category:@ signs?!?) not clear why this file would be useful to anyone. Uploaders other uploads seem to be selfies that they then requested to be deleted with reasons like "good". I'm guessing this is another one of those. --GRuban (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 19:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Unused part page of a magazine or paper, no obvious educational value. Richard Avery (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
out of com:scope Wvdp (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: personal photo of non-contributor. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of PD, and copyright can't be expired becaused she died in 1992. 171.4.234.217 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedily delete. No evidence of permission. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: just another copyright vialation. --JuTa 07:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
selfpromotion Adelfrank (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 00:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
CopyVio (https://www.instagram.com/p/B-cd_rxAS1P/) 1.36.15.223 04:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No permission. --Regasterios (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This file should be deleted from Commons as a copyright violation, unless there's affirmative proof it was created by an employee of the federal government during the course of official duties. It's more likely that this was created by an employee of the State of Tennessee, and state creations are not automatically in the public domain as those of the federal government are. Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note, the graphic could be re-uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Imzadi 1979 → 22:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and due to lack of license. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. JGHowes talk 23:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Account made 2 edits accross all WMF projects. And these two eits were for this unused and unusable thumbnail. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 07:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
i don't want to see it Aminkhanshovo (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- No valid reason for deletion, but Delete by courtesy. --Achim (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; unused personal photo. --Minoraxtalk 07:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Advertisement. Solomon203 (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 07:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
out of com:scope Wvdp (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 07:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Random street picture, no educational value. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Educational use possible. --MB-one (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
no release of copyright found. logo of organisation. logo seems to be beyond simple typography or geometric shapes. Robertsky (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
no release of copyright found. logo of organisation. logo seems to be beyond simple typography or geometric shapes. Robertsky (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
No indication that the photograph was published more than 30 years ago. Article 16 of Iran copyright rule does not concern the creation date. Pinging @DejaVu. Ahmadtalk 15:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ahmad252: This file has been published in a book which is called "آشنائی با سازمان چریک های فدایی خلق" in persian on 1980, Also it has been used in another one (چريکهای فدايی خلق نوشته محمود نادری - ناشر: مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهشهاى سیاسى) too. Also you can find it اhere as well.00:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Déjà vu • ✉
- @DejaVu: Thanks. Apparently, چریکهای فدایی خلق is not old enough (it was published ~ 9 years ago). This one was published in 2011, so it's not old enough either. But, about "آشنائی با سازمان چریک های فدایی خلق", can you please provide a link, or some more details? I couldn't find it anywhere online. Thanks. Ahmadtalk 05:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 22:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work; the username of the uploader suggests that they are the person depicted in the photo, while the photo is not likely to be a selfie. It's also small and lacks EXIF data. Being out of COM:SCOPE might also be the case. Ahmadtalk 15:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 22:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
out of com:scope Wvdp (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 13:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
porque lo actualice LEANDRO RENÉ (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Lo subí por error LEANDRO RENÉ (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, unused file. Uploader's request, courtesy deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This logo is no longer current (it was uploaded 8 years ago). Our current logo is in Wikimedia Commons. People continue to pull this older logo and use it in error and we would like this to stop. 205.156.136.229 14:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Leyo 11:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
This file is redundant to our current logo, uploaded here: File:NERA_Economic_Consulting_Logo.png Lauren.Covalucci NERA (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep Logos both current and historical have a place in Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --Ankry (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Useless personal photo from Facebook. Solomon203 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Undescribed, unlocated and unused image of no educative or exemplar value Richard Avery (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- It has the same subject like File:Rosenthal-10-13 (4) Azalienweg-Rollberg.JPG - cf. "Aralienweg" on Photo<->description, the fence behind the street sign and form and windows of the house. Perhaps, the author himself thought the picture is failed ("Bla Bla")--Edfyr (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: It looks like a test file. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Small file, dubious own work; maybe we should return to the previous version. Indeed the files must be splitted in any case. E4024 (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by CptViraj at 17:27, 12 November 2020 UTC: G2: Broken redirect --Krdbot 20:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Files from &C
[edit]These files are all sourced to YouTube videos that, at one time, were marked with a CC-BY 2.0 license. In ticket:2020070910005741, an authorized representative of &C states that the CC-BY marking was accidental. The YouTube videos have since been changed to the intended YouTube Standard License, and &C requests that we delete these images.
(This is a procedural nomination, I have no particular opinion on the outcome. Three other DRs 1 2 3 have been merged into this DR.)
- File:NikkieTutorials 2020 - 2.png - and File:NikkieTutorials 2020 - 2 (cropped).png
- File:Chantal Janzen en Nikkie de Jager.png
- File:ChantalJanzen2020.jpg
- File:ChantalMonic2019.jpg
- File:FredvanLeer2019.jpg
- File:Gorgels2019a.jpg
- File:IgonedeJongh2020.jpg
- File:KajGorgels2019.jpg
- File:Kemper2019.jpg
- File:KemperGorgels2019.jpg
- File:Koningsbrugge2019.jpg
- File:MaryamHassouni2020 license link.jpg
- File:MonicHendrickx2019.jpg
- File:MonicHendrickx2019a.jpg
- File:NienkePlas2019.jpg
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The license is irrevocable (and wouldn't be very useful if it weren't), and though I'm normally willing to offer lenience in the case of one-off or occasional human error, here, despite what the representative says about "accidental", I think the company just changed its mind. You'll notice the first one, File:Chantal_Janzen_en_Nikkie_de_Jager.png is from April 2020, File:Koningsbrugge2019.jpg is from June 2019, and most of the months in between are also represented by the other images, so this was an "accidental" marking repeated at least 16 times, and over the course of almost a year at least? I think it's more likely that the company got a new administrator who doesn't like that the old administrator marked the old things CC-BY, and wants to take it back. A license to reuse isn't very useful if the issuer can arbitrarily take it back at any time, as no one can use it for anything without the continuous fear that it could be revoked. --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per GRuban. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep These 14 images were taken from videos uploaded to YouTube by the license holder between March 2019 and April 2020, with a Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed), as can be seen at the Internet Archive, etc. Two of the images were license reviewed at a later date, one on 26 March 2020 and one on 10 July 2020. Both reviewers confirmed that the video was available there under the stated license on that date. Ten of the videos were uploaded to YouTube with the same correct CC-BY license in 2019, 4 in 2020. As this license is irrevocable, the case is crystal clear. Vysotsky (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Once the licence is given, the owner cannot withdraw the licence. So keep. Ymnes (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete (the NikkieTutorials photos), the original source for that image is NikkieTutorials’s own copyrighted video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOOw2E_qAsE). Someone later using screen stills from that in a CC-licensed video doesn’t mean that those images are suitable for Wikipedia commons. Umimmak (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment Indeed. The first two NikkieTutorial photos (Both File:NikkieTutorials 2020 - 2.png - and File:NikkieTutorials 2020 - 2 (cropped).png) have nothing to do with this deletion request, as they are no "Files from &C". All others are evidently {{keep}}, but these two do NOT belong in this deletion request. Vysotsky (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. The license is irrevocable, using it over a year is not what should be considered 'by mistake', so keeping the images per the webarchive, except for the NikkieTutorials images. --Ciell (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Original source [1] has been deleted. The archive copy indicates CC-0, but the image itself was not captured in the archive. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Although the original source has been deleted, the link has been saved to the Internet Archive and clearly shows the CC0 licensing. See https://web.archive.org/web/20180620024144/https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/19161080. I'll edit the source information on Wikicommons to show this. Surely the image itself doesn't have to be archived, just the proof that the image was licensed CC0? - Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, how do we know it ws the uploaded image whcih was uploaded to iNaturalist? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: We know a file was uploaded with a free license but we can't verify that it is this file. --MGA73 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Tropical Tidbits' files are copyrighted, see "Copyright © 2012-2020 Tropical Tidbits, All Rights Reserved." A1Cafel (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: what new could be added to existing collection of explicit materials? EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of two videos on the subject. We have a very limited collection of explicit materials, one that wouldn't remotely cover a Wikibooks book on sex; it just happens to be added to in ways that are redundant. This isn't redundant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not impressed by the above. --E4024 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is, you don't think that the educational scope of Wikimedia Commons covers this work, that unlike every other subject in Commons, we can only have one video of this subject?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is the question to me or to the admin with whose approach I concur? --E4024 (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- The way threading works, it is clearly a question directed at you. You can ignore or respond, but it feels annoying to have you dodge it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Look, English is not my native language, it is not even the foreign language I can speak best; I had to look at a dictionary to understand you (I mean the verb to dodge). Let me explain to you how I see the picture: You are against deletion of this file. For some reason you avoid the person who opened the DR and question me. OK, maybe you did not like my words "not impressed", then I withdraw them. My opinion is "{vd} per nom". Bye. E4024 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I replied to the person who opened the DR in my VK. You then replied to my VK in your VD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Look, English is not my native language, it is not even the foreign language I can speak best; I had to look at a dictionary to understand you (I mean the verb to dodge). Let me explain to you how I see the picture: You are against deletion of this file. For some reason you avoid the person who opened the DR and question me. OK, maybe you did not like my words "not impressed", then I withdraw them. My opinion is "{vd} per nom". Bye. E4024 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- The way threading works, it is clearly a question directed at you. You can ignore or respond, but it feels annoying to have you dodge it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is the question to me or to the admin with whose approach I concur? --E4024 (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is, you don't think that the educational scope of Wikimedia Commons covers this work, that unlike every other subject in Commons, we can only have one video of this subject?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:NUDITY#Significantly different from existing files. Just Some Wikipedian (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of only two videos on the topic of female ejaculation, and is of far higher quality than the other one. Dronebogus (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep has higher digital than File:Female ejaculation.webm, hence this one is acceptable. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
pornographic content NairobiPapel (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Human sexuality in general is in scope. I believe COM:NUDITY#Significantly different from existing files applies here. Just Some Wikipedian (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- stick, no different from the medical aspects of the case, not manipulated, no admonition, etc just plain anonymous recording, helps in the development of this aspect of life there are many films from the 1920s that have been preserved for years and do not bother anyone. There is nothing vulgar here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17jugi 2020-10-25 11:11:58 (talk • contribs)
- Keep niiice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.148.169 (talk • contribs) 2020-11-08 01:31:45 (UTC)
- Keep, per above keep-votes. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, per Prosfilaes, Just Some Wikipedian and others. --Phyrexian ɸ 01:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
this is porn 81.191.203.225 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per previous kept listing; no new reason for deletion offered. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I regret uploading this picture. It should have remained private. Vera (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by 1Veertje at 09:48, 3 Dezember 2020 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interconfessioneel Makeblijde College.jpg --Krdbot 14:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
out of com:scope. possible copyright violation. Wvdp (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. --ƏXPLICIT 03:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Superceded by Bandera Municipio Guanipa.svg and redundant file. Daniqui04 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
author request deletion Daniqui04 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 02:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Image found on the web many places such as here and here; credited to the "Epic Museum" so we would need their permission through COM:OTRS. Uploader at this older point in time appeared to have been copying images off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; per COM:PRP. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 廣九直通車 as no permission (No permission since) I99pema (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @I99pema: It's clear that Mynewsdesk.com is listed on COM:BAD as a bad source. As a result, the "permission" given on the website should not be accepted, and extra permission from the author will be needed.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There are no camera details. This appears to be a media shot, suspected copyvio. If the user's own work there needs to be more statement about this and/or an OTRS approval Timtrent (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Oldest version of this photo I've found is on Flickr by NYS DEC in 2015 under a CC-By-ND license, which contradicts the given Commons license. An archived copy of this Flickr photo shows the CC-By-ND license was there as of 2019, which predates the 2020 Commons upload. Otherwise, this photo was uploaded onto North Country Public Radio's website in 2016, while also crediting the Flickr page. With the older NCPR/Flickr upload and inconsistent CC license, this is definitely a copyvio. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence that professional photographer Jaume de la Iguana really has released this picture under the mentioned licence. The source (now offline) was a website where fans uploaded their favourite Shakira images. Discostu (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete Fan website. No permission from original author. Larger version available online. --Smooth O (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Image is from Reuters, VOA mistakenly credited it as theirs, now fixed. Elmkl (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Finnusertop (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
No exif, unlikely to be own work, looks like a screenshot Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This image and all others uploaded by this user are being used for a long-running hoax campaign to vandalise Australian political articles by claiming that the "Andrew Andrews" supposedly pictured was the Australian Leader of the Opposition from 2013 to 2019. --Canley (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to delete all previous versions of this file except the current one, because they have my email address on, and as a result, my email address and phone number are now indexed on Google and are likely to attract spam. I have removed this information from the current version of this file. Petergray4045 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, I decided to delete all versions of the file, because they have no educational value. This is unused personal file, some kind of project to change a law – such files are considered out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
A higher quality vector image already exists here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:21st_SS_Division_Logo.svg Kj1595 (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
see nomination above, despite the result being delete the file hasn't been deleted, nor was it deleted then recovered, I believe it was kept by accident - Nutshinou Talk! 21:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 06:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I did some image searching and couldn't find any images online. 173.66.27.116 21:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- No web hits, neither Google nor TinEye nor Yandex nor Bing. --Achim (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & facebook. Google search is your friend. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Self-portrait of inactive editor on enwiki Fayenatic london (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
out of com:scope Wvdp (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This image seems to have existed on the web prior to upload. It is the first image in the carousel on this page (direct image), albeit with some color correction. A crop is also here (direct image) which dates from 2014. We would need to identify the copyright owner and get COM:OTRS permission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This image was copied from http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2015/05/13/ . It is definitely not "own work", nor CC licensed. It may be {{PD-chart}} though as a simple line graph. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Not "own work"; image exists (from at least 2016) at tripadvisor.com (direct image here). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to be "own work"; there are hits at tripadvisor.com (though have not yet found this image in their gallery) but it was also used for example at groupon.ie. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The source flickr account is blacklisted. I tried to pass it and got this message. Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this file should be deleted if everything is fine with it — File:Discus (Symphysodon discus) (3149751218).jpg. May you explain? --Olyngo (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Olyngo,
I did not blacklist this account--I am not an Admin, only a reviewer--but I can see why Cliff's account was blacklisted. He placed these images, which are NOT his own work on a FREE LICENSE. See Image1, Image2, Image3 , Image4, Image5 and Image6 That is considered flickrwashing. He has many other images under Most Popular Photos Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, but why then don't delete the file
?? --Olyngo (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, but why then don't delete the file
_(3149751218).jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Copy.png){kind=link}
_7.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![165 File:Still from Santa Fe Courthouse video; the "ghost" is circled in red..jpg](#File:Still_from_Santa_Fe_Courthouse_video;_the_"ghost"_is_circled_in_red..jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1111.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_King_%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%9C%E0%B1%81_%E0%B0%B5%E0%B0%82%E0%B0%B6%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%9C%E0%B1%8D_(_%E0%B0%86%E0%B0%B0%E0%B1%8D_%E0%B0%B5%E0%B0%BF_%E0%B0%86%E0%B0%B0%E0%B1%8D_uu.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Azalienweg-Rollberg.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
/Shakira/shakira-48a.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Copy.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Copy.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Copy.png){kind=link}
_-_Copy.png){kind=link}
- Olyngo Because its simpler to just blacklist photos from the entire flickr account. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Larger version found on the web at https://joravision.com/news/theaawards2019 (direct image here). Does not appear to be "own work". Uploader at this older point in time appeared to have been copying images off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused logo Perumalism (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Found on the web, such as at https://blooloop.com/showcase/the-roman-baths-tepidarium/ (direct image here). Does not appear to be "own work". Uploader at this older point in time appeared to have been copying images off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Image © by Tom Kawara according to Meta Data Albinfo (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Looks like it is a differently cropped version of the first image in this IRJ article, and given the copyright statement I suspect it has probably been released by the VBZ press office. We could ask permission to use it from them, but on the other hand we are likely to have plenty of good photos of the subject soon without licensing complexities, so maybe not worth the hassle. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- no, VBZ press office is not able to release this image. Tom Kawara is a well known freelance photographer. Only the person who took the image can release it to cc.
- The uploader can initiate an OTRS process. But the license (own work) is still not correct. --Albinfo (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- to be deleted--Pechristener (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Appears to have been taken from the museum's website: https://hcandersensodense.dk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/IMG_8496_WEB.jpg. Uploader at this older point in time appeared to have been copying images off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The image was contributed by "Tzemach HaSade" (Field plant), but the photographer was Ms. Sara Gold. No OTRS confirmation has been given by Gold. Dgw (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The image was contributed to "Tzemach HaSade" Sara Gold, the text is in Hebrew you should study Hebrew it before you suggest deletion ShaulaH (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- לטענת ShaulaH, תרמה שרה גולד את התמונה שצילמה ל"צמח השדה", אבל אין OTRS משרה גולד המאשר תרומה כזו. שרה גולד צילמה את התמונה, אבל "צמח השדה" הוא שהעלה את התמונה. Dgw (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- ShaulaH, על פי הנראה מי שהעלה את הקובץ לאתר שלכם הוא לא היוצר. במקרה כזה, על פי הכללים שלנו, נדרש אישור בנוסח שמופיע בדף ויקיפדיה:OTRS. -- Geagea (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be cropped from an image here (or maybe another similar source). Uploader at this older point in time appeared to have been copying images off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Appears to come from at least an article in www.theguardian.com. Uploader at this older point in time appeared to have been copying images off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Found in many places on the web, including vogue.fr, where it's marked © Simulation Van Gogh, La nuit étoilée ® Culturespaces/Gianfranco Iannuzzi. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Not own work; there is a version at www.visitdenmark.com which is credited to "Kengo Kuma, Cornelius Voge & MASU Planning". Uploader at this older point in time appeared to have been copying images off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Not own work; found in many places including worldarchitecture.org where it is marked "© Kengo Kuma and Architects" Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a cropped version of the World Architecture link above, based on the positions of the people in the picture. As the 2016 World Architecture post predates the 2019 Commons upload, and both the website and individual picture have a copyright notice, this is a copyvio. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Not able to find an internet source, but all the low-resolution images (including one with similar content) uploaded by this user on this date have come from internet sources. Uploader at this older point in time appeared to have been copying images off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely not own work as claimed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Not able to find an internet source, but all the low-resolution images (including several of the same exhibition) uploaded by this user on this date have come from internet sources. Uploader at this older point in time appeared to have been copying images off the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
COM:TOYS. Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
|
This file has been superseded by Pope Gregory XVI (cropped).tif. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent.
|
|
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
|
|
This file has been superseded by Pope Gregory XVI.tif. It is recommended to use the other file. Please note that deleting superseded images requires consent.
|
|
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LosBunkers14911.png Tanromero (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Victormutis93 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.rockandpop.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/LosBunkers14911-1024x528.png E4024 (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for this. A user is trying to delete their own uploads of several years ago (and in use) and is doing this by opening a DR, than removing the tag (for which I failed to notice) are opening an SD request. In the same time the user is chainging their user name and original information on the file. Either the copyright mafia is after them or these are disruptive edits. Maybe an authoritative warning could help them. --E4024 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not published in 1900 as it's stated, since this architect is born in 1898, and therefore PD-US-expired can't be applied here (states it's published before before January 1, 1925).
- File:15 Casopis Pregled arhitekture, br. 1, 1954.tif
- File:3 Kuca Milana Zlokovica u Beogradu.jpg
- File:18 Urbani predeo.jpg
- File:17 Mrtva priroda.jpg
- File:16 Modularna koordinacija.tif
- File:14 Terenska istrazivanje.jpg
- File:12 Turisticko naselje u Ulcinju.jpg
- File:13 Pedagoska skola u Prizrenu.jpg
- File:11 Zgrada FIAT-a u Beogradu.tif
- File:9 Osnovna skola u Jagodini.jpg
- File:10 Dom zdravlja u Risnu.jpg
- File:8 Univerzitetska decja klinika u Beogradu.jpg
- File:7 Vila Prendic u Beogradu.jpg
- File:6 Hotel Zica u Mataruskoj Banji.png
- File:5 Drzavna hipotekarna banka u Sarajevu.jpg
- File:1 Arhitekta Milan Zlokovic.tif
- File:4 Kuca Nevene Zaborski u Beogradu.jpg
- File:2 Zgrada Josifa Sojata u Beogradu.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
tropical tidbits imagery is not allowed FleurDeOdile (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @FleurDeOdile: when did we decide it wasn't allowed? there's no real issues standing in the way of TT imagery being used. it's nasa imagery provided and accreditted to all involved distributors. ~ AC5230 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- fuck, i stand corrected. - per User:Jasper Deng on IRC: TT’s *derivative* of a PD work is copyrighted, just like certain covers of the oldest Christmas songs are copyrighted. ~ AC5230 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC) (2:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time)
- @FleurDeOdile: I don't really see the Problem it seems like TropicalTidbits straight up downloaded this from a NOAA website (making it public domain) and reposted this. Since it public domain this is completely legit but it shouldn't give TropicalTidbits no copyrighted claim on this whatsoever.Sausius (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete TropicalTidbits is copyrighted. Destroyeraa (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom Dam222 (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Gyrostat (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Semra Şenol has authored two books and is in scope, however this picture does not qualify for "own work". We prefer a cellphone snapshot. Please take a photo yourself. E4024 (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I opened this DR due to small size of the file, but now looking for the image in Google I cannot find it. Therefore I'm categorizing it. --E4024 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: haven't found it elsewhere published, see no reason to suspect copyvio here. --rubin16 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
it s wrong a lil bit. i am uploading a new version. tried to update but preview file is broked and wont chenge to new. Zaripov999 (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- it auto fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaripov999 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Порушення авторських прав スダ エフゲーニヤ (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
this file is an old version - new trans[arent one uploaded Sarathnamanattu (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: processed as duplicate. --rubin16 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be a low resolution duplicate of File:SpookbrugVarsenare.jpg. Schlosser67 (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: processed as duplicate. --rubin16 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
כיוון שזה לוגו זיוה המצחיקה (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
_7.jpg){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
כיוון שזה חסר ערך זיוה המצחיקה (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
_7.jpg){kind=link}
- Можна падрабязней, чаму Вы ставіце на выдаленне? - --Паўлюк Шапецька 03:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
_7.jpg){kind=link}
The file is no longer needed on Wikipedia as the team's page was never made. And for privacy reasons the team would like this file deleted. Vintiusracing (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The file is no longer needed on Wikipedia as the team's page was never made. And for privacy reasons the team would like this file deleted. Vintiusracing (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The file is no longer needed on Wikipedia as the team's page was never made. And for privacy reasons the team would like this file deleted. Vintiusracing (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The file is no longer needed on Wikipedia as the team's page was never made. And for privacy reasons the team would like this file deleted. Vintiusracing (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
no release of copyright found. logo of organisation. logo seems to be beyond simple typography or geometric shapes. Robertsky (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
E' un disegno di prova che non credo abbia uso su questa piattaforma Daviddolci (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: seems to be out of scope. --rubin16 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Autore della foto non corrispondente a chi ha caricato il file Daviddolci (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Per mio errore ho pubblicato una foto non scattata dal sottoscritto. Grazie per la Vs collaborazione--93.42.106.180 13:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: uploader equals to the name of author stated, can't find image published elsewhere. Don't see the reason to delete it. --rubin16 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
because i want to sell the picture Soniaprevot (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- But you donated it to the public under a free license 2 years ago. --Túrelio (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This is most probably a copyright violation, low resolution, no EXIF information, no mention of the photographer, picture is all over the internet Discostu (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Not really an own work. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 12:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Proof of copyright not provided Hektor (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: found it in twitter also, not first published here. --rubin16 (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
derivative work of a picture that was deleted becaue of onclear copyright status Discostu (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
L'ho caricata per errore Cascafico (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No source indicated, no indication that Bebe Rexha has given permission for her signature to be given to the public domain. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Other files uploaded by the same person, involving the same lack of permission from a living person, and a lack of source, include the following:
- File:Myqerem Tafaj (nënshkrim).svg
- File:Dua Lipa (nënshkrim).svg
- File:Rita Ora (nënshkrim).svg
- File:Aldo Bumçi (nënshkrim).svg
- File:Robert Ndrenika (nënshkrim).svg
- File:Bujar Bukoshi (nënshkrim).svg
- File:Olta Xhaçka (nënshkrim).svg
- File:Klement Zguri (nënshkrim).svg
- File:Arben Ristani (nënshkrim).svg
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- I'm sure that User:Kj1595 will know if there are others. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The signatures are digitalized versions which I created, not the actual signatures of these public figures. Kj1595 (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Furthermore, with the exceptions of Dua Lipa, Rita Ora and Bebe Rexha, the rest of the signatures are "typical signatures" of politicians which are permitted under the PD-signature tag (if I were to place one) in most countries, including Albania and the United States. Kj1595 (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: kept all per COM:SIG. --rubin16 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Wedg as no permission (No permission since)
Challenging this, since it clearly points to a permission, which I recall did exist. The page must have been deleted recently, but I think an administrator should undelete it, since quite a few files link to it. Maybe it should be moved out of User:Kamui99 user space? GRuban (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The permission statement can be found here: Template_talk:DirtyBob_license. Tabercil (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I challenge this proposal for deletion also. It clearly linked to a DirtyBob license. DirtyBob is linked to many image files that are still currently being used.Jinxee6966 (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: I have fixed the license of the file. --rubin16 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Not own work: missing original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Useless low quality photo. The bag is too close to the camera lens. Solomon203 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep "too close to the camera lens" is not a valid reason for deletion.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: what new could be added to existing collection of explicit materials?
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Only video in Category:Phimosis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --rubin16 (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. The uploader is not the author. Uploader is blocked at en-wiki for promotion and also has a long history of misunderstanding copyright. This is a professional promo photo from the subject's wrestling career and most likely is owned by the WWE. OrgoneBox (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Obviously not the uploader's "own work" Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's right.--Totorvdr59 (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It looks like professional photo, but no metadata is given; low res. I smell copyvio. Cjp24 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: can't found it published elsewhere but no categorization, no usage, we are safe to delete it. --rubin16 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
We are Zoe Saldana's attorneys. She has requested that her signature be removed from this site. If you have any further questions, please contact: bmd@morrisyorn.com. Thank you. 38.107.113.2 16:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
To add to this request, we point to [Signatures of living persons] which states: "Concerns about privacy and identity theft make it imperative that signatures be removed upon the request of the subject." Please heed this request. Thank you.
- I agree that the signature should be deleted. The first reason is that it is a violation of privacy. The second reason is that it's an artistic, flowery signature which stands on its own as original art. It contains an artistic but functionally unnecessary horizontal line in the first letter Z. Another artistic feature is the closing loop which is artistic and not functionally necessary. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion This doesn't seem particularly artistic to me - seems like any other signature. It doesn't make any sense why deleting this would protect her privacy. She readily gives out her signature in autographs and her signature is already all over the internet. HAL333 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- Although I don't necessarily agree that it should be deleted or that this request has any legal standing, it is general practice on Wikipedia to remove signatures of living people upon their request. Mclay1 (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi all. Checking in here on this request. How do we resolve this deletion request? Thank you! 38.107.113.2 19:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support deletion. Per BLP. I believe we should ignore the fact that she has requested this via her lawyers and treat it as a request from the subject. I am unfamiliar with the Commons BLP policy, but common sense and a respect for privacy should rule here. -Arch dude (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support deletion as not educationally useful and as a courtesy to Ms Saldana. The use has been removed from enwiki as a violation of en:wikipedia:biographies of living people policy, and Ms Saldana has requested its deletion. —teb728 t c 04:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support deletion, per teb728. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per the reasoning in w:WP:BLPSIGN#Privacy. For me the bottom line is privacy and the risk of facilitating identity theft. Or to put it another way, I would feel profoundly uncomfortable if my signature was hosted on Commons, hideous childlike scrawl that is.PS. I also think that since this discussion has been open for 10 months, and there is only a single oppose against now 7 supports, it is high time it is actioned. Just because those participating (on both sides) probably mostly came from enwp doesn't make the outcome any less clear or less valid, absent specific conflict with Commons policy or significant participation from more established Commons community members. COM:BLP, while rigged very differently from w:WP:BLP for obvious reasons, still recognises the issues being adduced in this discussion as the reasons for deletion, so that outcome would very much be in line with and based on Commons' policy. --Xover (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: signature taken from publicly available source ([2]), COM:SIG is different from en.wiki policy and I don't think it should be deleted on copyright basis. In case they want to file a DMCA request, there is a separate way to do it. --rubin16 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Based on previous DR, and on the discussion on UDR. Yann (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. I opened the UDR because it seemed to be the closest process to w:WP:DRV. Reproducing my rationale from Commons:Undeletion_requests#File:Zoe_Saldana_signature.svg:
- User:Rubin16 kept this file contradicting consensus at the original DR (7 in support of deletion, 1 opposed), citing COM:SIG and stating "I don't think it should be deleted on copyright basis". I don't believe copyright was any of the original participants' primary reasons for advocating deletion. From my assessment, most advocated for deletion on privacy grounds and out of respect for a good faith request from the subject. It is not used on her EN article per consensus that there is no educational value for including it. My reading of COM:SIG is that it merely describes when signatures do or do not fall into PD. It does not require that Commons host a copy of a person's signature, even if it falls into PD, and especially not in the face of a good faith request for removal from the subject. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @38.107.113.2, Binksternet, HAL333, Mclay1, Arch dude, 104.172.245.182, Teb728, Hoary, Xover, King of Hearts, Rubin16, Jameslwoodward, and JWilz12345: pinging members of previous discussions. Apologies to people who were pinged multiple times over this! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Good-faith request from the subject should be honored. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete Good faith request. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The undelete was based on a misinterpretation of COM:BLP, narrowly interpreting this as solely a copyright issue. The policy is actually quite clear about the non-copyright issue of privacy. I feel that the undeleting admin should discuss this at the policy level before undeleting. -Arch dude (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear, the file was never deleted in the first place. Rubin16 closed the above discussion as Keep, despite the supermajority consensus for delete. I took it to UDR because I couldn't find a better place for it, but I've been advised that simply opening a new DR is the best option. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. @Axem Titanium: note that COM:UNDEL is equivalent to en:WP:UNDEL; there is no close equivalent to deletion review, and re-nomination is the best option for this case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep The signature is available elsewhere so if there is no privacy concerns keeping it on Instagram, I wonder why there are privacy concerns keeping it here. We do not accept censorship. Also, it is used on fiwiki, so if it is deleted per courtesy, it should be restored per any fiwiki user request. Noting that English Wikipedia policies or irrelevant: both here and in fiwiki. And DMCA is always the available path for copyright violations. Ankry (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't about censorship. A person should have the right to decide when and where their signature is deployed. Voluntarily posting it on Instagram (or signing a fan's autograph book) is substantively different from someone else tracing it and posting it online without their consent, is it not? Per COM:SIG, there's also no policy on Commons stating that it must host a PD image of a person's signature, merely that it may. I'm also not seeing why a hypothetical fi.wiki editor's request should outweigh the request of the person herself. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- The argument about “must host” isn’t valid: Wikimedia projects are based on volunteers’ work, so, any type of content could be desired to exist but there couldn’t be an obligation to exist. And when one decides that its work (a free one) could be used somewhere but not used in another source it is censorship and goes against the values of free knowledge. It is the same way when NPG hosts PD paintings but doesn’t allow others to publish them, even threatening to sue: User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat/Coverage. It is a free work, it is publicly available in a reliable and highly popular account, why do we need to delete it before it is deleted from Instagram? I am sure Zoe knows how to contact Pratt. rubin16 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't about censorship. A person should have the right to decide when and where their signature is deployed. Voluntarily posting it on Instagram (or signing a fan's autograph book) is substantively different from someone else tracing it and posting it online without their consent, is it not? Per COM:SIG, there's also no policy on Commons stating that it must host a PD image of a person's signature, merely that it may. I'm also not seeing why a hypothetical fi.wiki editor's request should outweigh the request of the person herself. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I have no strong view on the substance of whether this should be deleted or kept. I simply think that if there is a DR supermajority to delete in accordance with the subject's wishes, we should not overrule the consensus for not being based on any explicit policy; I think it would be a reasonable application of COM:IAR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep. DR is a discussion, not a voting, and I don’t think that the majority itself counts: we have cases where a lot of people just state “we shouldn’t care about FoP”, for example. And I don’t want to discuss participants’ contributions but I wouldn’t call all of them active members of Commons, though they are active members elsewhere. I would have agreed with deletion if the image would have been leaked from some closed source, uploaded as dubious own work by an unknown user but here it is still published and available on Instagram. En.wiki policies don’t apply here, I don’t see any privacy issues here, so, no basis for deletion. rubin16 (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, DR is a discussion to form consensus, not admin supervote powerhour. That you disagreed with the consensus does not give you the right to override it in closing the previous discussion. "I don’t want to discuss participants’ contributions" - it sounds like you have, my friend. You said the quiet part loud: that you don't consider the perspectives of people who aren't "active" enough on Commons to be worth as much as yours. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would answer here and probably cover some comment below. I would repeat again, the number of votes doesn’t matter here, we evaluate validity of arguments used. I see that probably people who participated in the discussion feel that their arguments were just ignored, probably, it was not the best quality of my summary of the discussion, but I still think that the result itself is correct. It doesn’t matter how many people support some view when it is not supported by local policies and practices: there are dozens of DRs here, for example, where people suggest ignoring freedom of panorama when images of high quality are deleted en masse despite being highly used in Wikimedia projects. It is not an admin supervote or ignoring majority, it is the validation of arguments. So, arguments for deletion before mainly talked about en.wiki practice, attorney’s request, and low educational value. Low value is a subjective one, the image is used in Wikimedia projects and can be used even more, as it is typical for such articles about celebrities to have signature images there. Attorney’s request isn’t a sufficient argument itself: it is just an IP request, we have DMCA or at least VRT to deal with such request and ensure that the request is valid. En.wiki practice isn’t automatically applied here (though it could hurt active en.wiki members, participating in this discussion) though we have local BLP policy and there is some common spirit in both policies. But local BLP says about undesired disclosure of personal information: when you don’t know that someone makes your photo, when photo was taken from some hidden place, when it is has low value, is unused but could make harm to a person (for example, a photo from a public nudist beach). It’s not a case here, it was publicly posted in a highly visible place, still available there. That’s why I discarded these arguments, despite being numerous, as invalid, but considered DR more a censorship attempt. rubin16 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- What good is it to invite a DMCA takedown? It wastes everyone's time (ours, the WMF/VRT, the attorneys, etc.) when we could just be decent human beings responding to a good faith request? The outcome is the same but the former risks damaging Wikimedia's standing in the eyes of the law. Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would answer here and probably cover some comment below. I would repeat again, the number of votes doesn’t matter here, we evaluate validity of arguments used. I see that probably people who participated in the discussion feel that their arguments were just ignored, probably, it was not the best quality of my summary of the discussion, but I still think that the result itself is correct. It doesn’t matter how many people support some view when it is not supported by local policies and practices: there are dozens of DRs here, for example, where people suggest ignoring freedom of panorama when images of high quality are deleted en masse despite being highly used in Wikimedia projects. It is not an admin supervote or ignoring majority, it is the validation of arguments. So, arguments for deletion before mainly talked about en.wiki practice, attorney’s request, and low educational value. Low value is a subjective one, the image is used in Wikimedia projects and can be used even more, as it is typical for such articles about celebrities to have signature images there. Attorney’s request isn’t a sufficient argument itself: it is just an IP request, we have DMCA or at least VRT to deal with such request and ensure that the request is valid. En.wiki practice isn’t automatically applied here (though it could hurt active en.wiki members, participating in this discussion) though we have local BLP policy and there is some common spirit in both policies. But local BLP says about undesired disclosure of personal information: when you don’t know that someone makes your photo, when photo was taken from some hidden place, when it is has low value, is unused but could make harm to a person (for example, a photo from a public nudist beach). It’s not a case here, it was publicly posted in a highly visible place, still available there. That’s why I discarded these arguments, despite being numerous, as invalid, but considered DR more a censorship attempt. rubin16 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Full agreement with Axem Titanium's nomination above. Incidentally, this would be no loss for Wikipedia: I don't see how a signature is encyclopedic information, unless perhaps (a) the signator is known for signing baseballs, plaster-casts or even books, or (b) the signature (or forgery thereof) has been at all widely discussed. It's extraordinarily trivial, other I suppose than for readers under the delusion that "graphology" is of any value. Or of course for help in fraud. -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Category:Signatures here has ~60k files with scan on depth level of 2 subcategories. en:Template:Infobox person has a parameter for signatures, the same as various other infoboxes across other Wikimedia projects. I am afraid that discussion of non-encyclopaedic status of this information isn't valid here as it is actually well used. And P109 (property on Wikidata covering signatures) has ~25k inclusions. rubin16 (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep If there wasn't so much debate above, I would have said speedy keep. It is simple: the file is in use, there is no copyright issue (per discussion above) and there is no privacy issue (subject has publicly posted it themselves and apparently it is widely available elsewhere). And to ask the question that should have been asked above: where is the evidence that this request actually came from or on behalf of the subject? All I see is an IP address. Brianjd (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Brianjd: If you request proof that we are indeed her attorneys, you are free to email me at bmd@morrisyorn.com and I will confirm that I am indeed the same individual as the one communicating on this "talk" board. Any Google search of our law firm and Zoe Saldana's name should provide confirmation that our firm represents her. (38.107.113.2 23:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC))
- Delete The signature facilitates identity theft, and one's signature is, for some people, a very personal thing, like other matters covered by BLP, and requests to remove such that do not directly contradict policy should be honoured. The reasoning behind w:WP:BLPSIGN#Privacy applies (while COM:SIG, being narrowly about copyright, does not).@Rubin16: That you do not see any privacy issues here only means that you do not see any privacy issues. The seven other people participating in the deletion discussion did, and overruling them when there was no clear policy mandate to do so was in effect just an "admin supervote" (whether you intended it that way or not). While our policy does permit admins to have supervotes—for better or worse—employing it in this case was not the best idea: as we can see the issue just popped right back up again, alienated those community members who had participated in that discussion and now feel their concerns were ignored, discouraged others from participating in these discussions (because "What's the point? The admin will just decide on a whim anyway."), and resolved precisely nothing (because now the issue is up for discussion again). It also makes us look pretty gosh darned amateurish to everyone watching from the outside: we're supposed to be a collaborative and consensus-driven project, but only if the admin that happens to be the one closing the discussion happens to agree with the community members participating? It doesn't really matter whether the community was right or wrong, so long as there was no direct policy forbidding that outcome it should have been honoured. And if you, as an admin, feel strongly enough about it to challenge it, you should recuse yourself from acting as an admin on the issue, and go challenge it through normal community processes (UDR) and as a normal member of the community.PS. That a community member cites a policy on a different project as a rationale does not in itself invalidate their position. While it may not be policy here, a lot of policies on other projects have strong implicit or explicit rationales (i.e. they explain why the policy is that way) and citing them cites that rationale as an argument rather than as a policy per se. We should also keep in mind that policies on other projects, particularly the other large projects like the most popular Wikipedias, have often had the benefit of long and thorough community discussions and as such represent a strong consensus among a sizeable part of the wider Wikimedia community. Their policies are not binding here, but that doesn't mean their positions should be ignored or dismissed out of hand. BLP issues, in particular, is something enwp has had to grapple with extensively, so the rationales that underpin their policies in that area are the result of a lot of discussion and adjustment in light of practical experience. It would be beyond arrogant to dismiss it solely because it wasn't "invented here". --Xover (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Xover: Actually, @HAL333 also said they could not see any privacy issues here. HAL333 explicitly discussed this point and @Rubin16 implicitly addressed it by saying that the signature was taken from a "publicly available source". The other side may have had numbers on their side, but they have yet to produce a convincing explanation: how can something that is widely available to the public, including from the subject themselves, constitute a privacy issue? Brianjd (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: You're somewhat proving my point. HAL was indeed the lone person that disagreed in that discussion, and they did so by stating their rationale and that they found the arguments of the majority unconvincing. That's entirely fair and I am grateful they took time out to participate in the discussion: not everyone will agree on such issues, which is why we have discussions and community processes. But they also implicitly acknowledged the fact that all those !voting for deletion did provide arguments and rationales for their positions. Rubin's close against a 7:1 majority, and your dismissal now as "mere numbers", both discount their arguments as actually invalid just because you do not agree with them.And to address the actual argument you are making—which relates to your stance on the issue, to which you are entirely entitled, but in no way invalidates those other people's positions—there is a world of difference between the signature existing as one among those of 9 others' on an open letter, in JPEG format, on Instagram, where images are generally recognised as being protected by copyright, and as an extracted and traced vector (SVG) version that is hosted on a massive file repository known (in fact, defines itself fundamentally as) for only hosting freely reusable media, and labelled as "public domain". Not least of which is the ease with which it can be rescaled and manipulated to forge a document (for, e.g., purposes of identity theft, or mere harassment, Joe jobs, etc.). It is also not up to us, or anyone else, to decide what Zaldana feels is an invasion of her privacy. We may some times be forced to decline to accommodate such requests when they are in direct contravention of our policies and the requester too out of step with the average norms for what constitutes a violation of privacy, but that does not generally give us the power of definition over this. Context matters: signing an open letter for some presumably good cause, or signing an autograph for a fan, does not imply that you somehow lose the right to complain about a third party extracting and posting a high-resolution vector trace of the signature in isolation. Absent copyrightability (which I don't really see anyone arguing, and which I would be hard to persuade applied) they can't demand it be deleted, but they certainly can, as they have, ask for that courtesy. 7:1 in the deletion discussion were willing to accede to that request. Xover (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Xover: I wasn't discounting their arguments as "invalid". I was discounting them as "missing". Like I said, nobody explained how something widely available to the public can be considered private. That seems like a reasonable question to ask.
- When I first tried to view the Instagram post, the site was having technical issues. Then it turned out that viewing the post requires an Instagram account, which I do not have. But I have now viewed an archived copy, which matches your description - a description not previously provided.
- I still don't agree with deleting this file. But at least we now have a valid argument for doing so. So we can let the community debate it.
- Nitpick: There are nine signatures total, so eight other signatures besides the one being nominated here.
- Brianjd (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: You're somewhat proving my point. HAL was indeed the lone person that disagreed in that discussion, and they did so by stating their rationale and that they found the arguments of the majority unconvincing. That's entirely fair and I am grateful they took time out to participate in the discussion: not everyone will agree on such issues, which is why we have discussions and community processes. But they also implicitly acknowledged the fact that all those !voting for deletion did provide arguments and rationales for their positions. Rubin's close against a 7:1 majority, and your dismissal now as "mere numbers", both discount their arguments as actually invalid just because you do not agree with them.And to address the actual argument you are making—which relates to your stance on the issue, to which you are entirely entitled, but in no way invalidates those other people's positions—there is a world of difference between the signature existing as one among those of 9 others' on an open letter, in JPEG format, on Instagram, where images are generally recognised as being protected by copyright, and as an extracted and traced vector (SVG) version that is hosted on a massive file repository known (in fact, defines itself fundamentally as) for only hosting freely reusable media, and labelled as "public domain". Not least of which is the ease with which it can be rescaled and manipulated to forge a document (for, e.g., purposes of identity theft, or mere harassment, Joe jobs, etc.). It is also not up to us, or anyone else, to decide what Zaldana feels is an invasion of her privacy. We may some times be forced to decline to accommodate such requests when they are in direct contravention of our policies and the requester too out of step with the average norms for what constitutes a violation of privacy, but that does not generally give us the power of definition over this. Context matters: signing an open letter for some presumably good cause, or signing an autograph for a fan, does not imply that you somehow lose the right to complain about a third party extracting and posting a high-resolution vector trace of the signature in isolation. Absent copyrightability (which I don't really see anyone arguing, and which I would be hard to persuade applied) they can't demand it be deleted, but they certainly can, as they have, ask for that courtesy. 7:1 in the deletion discussion were willing to accede to that request. Xover (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Xover: Actually, @HAL333 also said they could not see any privacy issues here. HAL333 explicitly discussed this point and @Rubin16 implicitly addressed it by saying that the signature was taken from a "publicly available source". The other side may have had numbers on their side, but they have yet to produce a convincing explanation: how can something that is widely available to the public, including from the subject themselves, constitute a privacy issue? Brianjd (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There is a lot of talk about w:WP:BLPSIGN and "policy". For what it's worth, that page is not a policy, or even a guideline. It is merely an essay. Brianjd (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: It is being discussed as "policy" only by those who wish to dismiss it by casting it as being "not Commons policy". That argument is fallacious: nobody is arguing that any policy, much less the policy of a different project, requiires the file's deletion. They are citing a pre-existing wikipage that explains the rationale for their their !votes at more length than is convenient in a discussion. You know, like w:WP:ESSAY. Xover (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep In use in fi:Zoë Saldaña, signature is publicaly and notoriously available in a public forum in an open letter about an public and newsworthy subject and to the ones saying that it "violates" w:WP:BLPSIGN#Privacy, first welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a sister project to English Wikipedia (i.e. diferent projects, diferents policies, i.e. policies and guidelines in one project are not policies and guidelines in another, even when said "policies and guidelines" is merely an essay, i.e. "nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.). Tm (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Being available publicly on another platform does not mean that the subject automatically consents to her signature being available in all contexts for all time. Signing a letter in support of a coworker is extremely different than a signature being uploaded to Commons by a 3rd party user explicitly against her will, is it not? One can consent to publicly displaying it in one limited context without relinquishing all rights to privacy forever. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Axem Titanium: This seems like a straw man. This nomination is about an image that the subject is still distributing to the public themselves. Brianjd (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it is. The circumstances I gave are quite specific to this particular case and no one here is advocating that all signatures be deleted from Commons. It shouldn't matter that the subject is "still distributing" it. They should be able to choose the time and place of distribution, whether that makes sense to us or not. What's known is that the subject has requested deletion from Commons and I'm not seeing a compelling Commons policy reason to keep it over such a request. COM:SIG does not supply such a reason. Merely asserting that "it's public already" as a justification does not appear to be rooted in policy, unless you can point to one that says as much? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- The policy to keep the image is COM:SCOPE: it has value and is used in Wikimedia projects (it was you who removed it from fi.wp, not Finnish community itself). Value is proved by the fact that thousands of other articles are also illustrated with signatures. And there is no policy to delete it here, especially as it is still publicly available now with millions of views worldwide. rubin16 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I was complying with a request from Ms. Saldaña's attorneys on the page at fi.wp. Fi's BLP page is similar to en.wp's in that private information may be requested to be removed by the subject. It was restored by another user against policy after YOU closed the previous DR against consensus. I'm not going to make a blanket argument that signatures of public figures are broadly non-educational. But is that supposed educational purpose greater than a request for deletion from the subject? I don't think so. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- The policy to keep the image is COM:SCOPE: it has value and is used in Wikimedia projects (it was you who removed it from fi.wp, not Finnish community itself). Value is proved by the fact that thousands of other articles are also illustrated with signatures. And there is no policy to delete it here, especially as it is still publicly available now with millions of views worldwide. rubin16 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it is. The circumstances I gave are quite specific to this particular case and no one here is advocating that all signatures be deleted from Commons. It shouldn't matter that the subject is "still distributing" it. They should be able to choose the time and place of distribution, whether that makes sense to us or not. What's known is that the subject has requested deletion from Commons and I'm not seeing a compelling Commons policy reason to keep it over such a request. COM:SIG does not supply such a reason. Merely asserting that "it's public already" as a justification does not appear to be rooted in policy, unless you can point to one that says as much? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Axem Titanium: This seems like a straw man. This nomination is about an image that the subject is still distributing to the public themselves. Brianjd (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Being available publicly on another platform does not mean that the subject automatically consents to her signature being available in all contexts for all time. Signing a letter in support of a coworker is extremely different than a signature being uploaded to Commons by a 3rd party user explicitly against her will, is it not? One can consent to publicly displaying it in one limited context without relinquishing all rights to privacy forever. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Elly: Apologies for the informal nature of the request, we are trying to be respectful of Wikipedia's community (you all). In our experience, there is usually vehement rejection of any request that comes with even a veiled threat of formal legal action. If there is any doubt as to whether our law firm is "serious" or that we represent Zoe Saldana, a simple Google search of our name and hers together should confirm that we are a real law firm that represents Zoe Saldana. (38.107.113.2 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC))
- Hi 38.107.113.2. Thanks for your explanation. If it would help the discussion here, we could verify the relation between you and the mailadress bmd@morrisyorn.com. I could write to that address from the VRT system. Please ping me if needed. But - from my personal experience - if we receive a request as yours on mentioned VRT system (in the Dutch language queue I am mostly involved in), we always advise to contact the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation. They can consider all legal aspects and can take action directly. You are very kind and respectful to the community, which is very pleasant. However as you will note from the interesting discussion above, it does not seem to help the admins on Commons to deviate from the first decision by rubin16. Kind regards, Elly (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Elly: Apologies for the informal nature of the request, we are trying to be respectful of Wikipedia's community (you all). In our experience, there is usually vehement rejection of any request that comes with even a veiled threat of formal legal action. If there is any doubt as to whether our law firm is "serious" or that we represent Zoe Saldana, a simple Google search of our name and hers together should confirm that we are a real law firm that represents Zoe Saldana. (38.107.113.2 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC))
- Delete Thank you for opening this up once more. We are trying to be respectful of Wikipedia's community's processes, but we hope our vote carries more weight than others when considering deletion of the image. Again, if anyone wishes to contact us, I am available at bmd@morrisyorn.com. I would also like to clarify that the initial basis for our request is [Signatures of living persons] which states: "Concerns about privacy and identity theft make it imperative that signatures be removed upon the request of the subject." Please heed this request. Thank you. (38.107.113.2 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC))
- From the VRT system I did sent on November 7 an email to the given mailadress for confirmation of the identity, Ticket:2021110710005083. Today, I received confirmation. The person writing form IP 38.107.113.2 appears to use the mentioned email adress. Ellywa (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as uploader. In addition to the above, I can also confirm from personal communication that the IP user is a representative of Morris Yorn Barnes Levine Krintzman Rubenstein Kohner & Gellman, who are verifiably Saldaña's attorneys. – Rhain ☔ 23:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted. Someone has to close this request since the second opening on October 2021. I think the privacy issue and the wish of the owner of the signature (through the attorney) is important to take into account. This is countered by the fact that the open support letter with the signature is not deleted on the source page on Instagram and the signature is still available for everyone to copy it and use it as they would like. And it is countered by the fact many signatures exist on Commons without copyright issues.
Because arguments pro and con seem to balance each other, I counted the opinions of the people who took the trouble to comment. Of course, this is a last resort, because the Commons deletion policy is to close DR’s on the basis of arguments. King of Hearts referred to COM:IAR (ignore all rules). In addition, he stated “if there is a supermajority we should not overrule consensus”. I also agree with that. There appears a large majority for deletion of the file. Therefore, I decided to delete the file.
As some of you will think this is a wrong decision, I will add the aspect that the signature is used today on only two articles on the projects (fi and de), while there exist articles about ms. Saldana in 65 languages. So most users might think the signature is not so relevant for the biography of the person. But if you want to contest the decision, please do. I would like to cite User:Missvain Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. (CCBYSA3.0/GFDL). Ellywa (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with deleting the file
- Attorney User:38.107.113.2 (original request, repeated later)
- User:Binksternet (two times the same opinion)
- User:Mclay1 (on basis of general practice to remove signatures upon the request of the person)
- User:teb728
- User:Hoary (two times the same opinion)
- User:Xover
- User:Jameslwoodward
- User:Arch dude
- User:JWilz12345
- User:Axem Titanium
- User:Rhain (original uploader in August 2019)
- Agree with keeping the file
- User:HAL333
- User:Rubin16 (admin to close first request, later commented the same)
- User:Ankry
- User:Brianjd
- User:Tm
- User:Ellywa
- Unclear/no opinion
- User:Yann (opened second request)
- User:King of Hearts
Copyright you can see from interner: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&tbs=simg:CAQSwwIJqJa69McMsKcatwILEKjU2AQaAghCDAsQsIynCBpiCmAIAxIo1h_1yGr0Z-xrZH6UQ9g7XH_14fphDqJOs_12TrqP7Auxy7aOo0uxjmWLhowTxKSqQeVrWky7DFBzbUwVjI0t2dyH76RdHyMGNsavpk00uYGehUH1b8vit6T0LNPIAQMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgS1w0iqDAsQne3BCRqkAQocCglnZW50bGVtYW7apYj2AwsKCS9tLzAxOXA1cQohCg5mbGFnIGRheSAodXNhKdqliPYDCwoJL20vMDF0XzdsCiEKDmJ1c2luZXNzcGVyc29u2qWI9gMLCgkvbS8wMTJ0X3oKFgoEZmxhZ9qliPYDCgoIL20vMDMxMjAKJgoTd2hpdGUtY29sbGFyIHdvcmtlctqliPYDCwoJL20vMDFrcTN4DA&q=%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AF+%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3+%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87+%D9%85%D8%B4%DA%A9%DB%8C%D9%86%DB%8C&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQ2P_u_O3qAhWiDmMBHSOACI8Q2A4oAXoECBMQJQ&biw=1707&bih=803&dpr=1.13#imgrc=IOWi0XS0XuSpZM Hoseina051311 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
間違えた miss uploaded Himawari2525 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: another image was added by the uploader to the article 馬渕 孝太郎, so, deleting this one per the request. --rubin16 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Although the uploader appears to have been involved in investigating the haunting of this car park and taking additional footage through the camera system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_courthouse_ghost), the image here is a still from the original footage, presumably prior to his involvement - the Wikipedia article says After Jason Auslander of The Santa Fe New Mexican reported on the event and uploaded the footage to YouTube it was picked up by various news outlets, and I can't see anything suggesting that Auslander obtained those rights and released them or sold them on. Some kind of watermark is also visible in the bottom left of the image. Lord Belbury (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
![18:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/07/27#c-Lord_Belbury-2020-07-27T18:35:00.000Z-File:Still_from_Santa_Fe_Courthouse_video;_the_"ghost"_is_circled_in_red..jpg){kind=link}
- Actually I suppose the original footage may count as {{PD-USGov}}, if it's a security camera on a government building? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment} It's not a federal courthouse, though, it's a state courthouse, and PD-USGov doesn't cover that. There's arguments about the copyrightability of security footage like this in US copyright law, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
![16:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/07/27#c-Rubin16-2021-06-10T16:01:00.000Z-File:Still_from_Santa_Fe_Courthouse_video;_the_"ghost"_is_circled_in_red..jpg){kind=link}
File:Illustration from the Oosterscheldekering, the largest of thirteen Delta Works' dams and barriers.jpg
[edit]
The image is obviously a slavish copy, but the uploader claims it as own work. The file should be removed, and possibly replaced by a properly licensed diagram in the articles where it is used 185.65.134.173 20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment The nomination comes from an anonymous user who was blocked last year. The file was uploaded by someone who has uploaded nothing to wikipedia apart from images of the Delta works and the adjacent "visitor center" / "mini-delta works theme park". Most likely someone who works there or at least lives very close by, and might easily also be a draftsman / draftswoman as implied by the sourcing statement. I guess it's a question of whom you should believe. The phrase " ...is obviously a slavish copy" carries the burden of hyperbole, but the nomination is supported by nothing amounting to evidence either way. There might be scope for technically based tests to determine more on how the image was created which could be adduced as evidence. In the absence of that, and given that the image is usefully oncorporated on a number of wiki-pages, I would be inclined to give the benefit of any residual doubt to the statement from the fellow who uploaded the thing in the first place. Be well. Charles01 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The stated source provided by the uploader is bogus; the image does not appear there. EncycloPetey (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's time you refresh your memory of the stalking rule - Wikipedia:Harassment. --NoFrost (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Can you provide correct information for the "Source=" field? The links you provided do not contain this image despite your claim that it does. Images uploaded to Commons must identify their source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- page 80 --NoFrost (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Of the Dropbox website? Are you claiming that the PDF originated on Dropbox? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- You've probably completely "lost your edges." Did you go to the library and check to make sure that there is no image on this page? That's funny. --NoFrost (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Insulting other contributors is considered a personal attack. The question is: Are you claiming that the image originated on Dropbox? The source field should indicate the source of the file. If you extracted the image from the PDF, then you can use {{Extracted from}}, but we still need to know where the scan originated. The scan most certainly did not originate from Dropbox. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I use an electronic translator. What I write there in my original language - Russian - was not offensive (Insulting). As far as the source is concerned. What it looks like is... - Hall E., Wrigley А. Aristophanes in Performance 421 BC—AD 2007: Peace, Birds and Frogs (en.) page 80 / Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama (University of Oxford). Go to the library. Forget the dropbox. Success. --NoFrost (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- So, you do not know where the PDF came from? That is why I marked the File as "no image since", but you reverted that edit. Either you know where the PDF came from (please provide that information) or you do not (and it should be "no source since"). Which is correct? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I know where this PDF came from. And I will always defend my position. Wikipedia rules do not require me to explain anything about the PDF to anyone I meet (who accuses me of falsification without foundation). The source is listed. Well, that's enough. --NoFrost (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Again, this is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules do not apply on Commons. You say you know where the PDF came from, but you refuse to provide that information. Without that information, Commons does not know the source of the scan. It is missing information about the source of the scan. Refusing to provide the information is not helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- I know where this PDF came from. And I will always defend my position. Wikipedia rules do not require me to explain anything about the PDF to anyone I meet (who accuses me of falsification without foundation). The source is listed. Well, that's enough. --NoFrost (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I use an electronic translator. What I write there in my original language - Russian - was not offensive (Insulting). As far as the source is concerned. What it looks like is... - Hall E., Wrigley А. Aristophanes in Performance 421 BC—AD 2007: Peace, Birds and Frogs (en.) page 80 / Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama (University of Oxford). Go to the library. Forget the dropbox. Success. --NoFrost (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- You've probably completely "lost your edges." Did you go to the library and check to make sure that there is no image on this page? That's funny. --NoFrost (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- page 80 --NoFrost (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Bickering aside, NoFrost is correct that the exact source of a scan need not be identified as long as the image is verifiably from 1846, which the Dropbox PDF confirms on page 80. Wrap the PD tags in a {{PD-scan}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- If the source of the scan is not identified, then is it legitimate to mark the scan as not having the source identified. I think that is the secondary question here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether a source of this particular scan is identified, if the underlying work is clearly public domain and the reproduction is completely uncreative, then there is no valid reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- That response did not address my question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are you referring to {{No source since}}? That is a deletion template, and I have already explained why deletion is not appropriate here. Having a direct source is not actually a requirement; it is merely the common type of evidence used to prove that a file is freely licensed, but if we can prove that it is public domain through other means, then we don't need a source. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- That response did not address my question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether a source of this particular scan is identified, if the underlying work is clearly public domain and the reproduction is completely uncreative, then there is no valid reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- If the source of the scan is not identified, then is it legitimate to mark the scan as not having the source identified. I think that is the secondary question here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I completely concur with User:King of Hearts. I assume an honest mistake, and that this nomination was made in good faith, but the lack of proper sourcing for something that is obviously in the public domain is not a reason for deletion, and please remember that in the future rather than annoy uploaders of good content and wasting others' time. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per King of Hearts --DannyS712 (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is from The Illustrated London News, 18 April 1846. I have put in a link confirming that. Broichmore (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cosplay of Darth Vader
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted characters.
- File:Amsterdam - De Dam - Figure 1 (Darth Vader) cropped.JPG
- File:Amsterdam - De Dam - Figure 1 (Darth Vader).JPG
- File:Big Wow 2013 cosplayers (8845262721).jpg
- File:Big Wow 2013 cosplayers (8845881688).jpg
- File:Bob West with Vader.jpg
- File:C2E2 2013 - Ralph McQuarrie designed Darth Vader (8689082560).jpg
- File:C2E2 2014 - Darth Vader (14085522619).jpg
- File:Cinemaxx Copenhagen - Darth Vader.jpg
- File:Cinemaxx Copenhagen - Stormtroopers, Darth Vader and TIE fighter pilot.jpg
- File:Cinemaxx Copenhagen - Stormtroopers, TIE fighter pilot og Darth Vader.jpg
- File:Cosplayer of Darth Vader, Star Wars at PF23 20151025.jpg
- File:Darth Vader cosplay.JPG
- File:Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033) (cropped).jpg
- File:Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033) (cropped)a.jpg
- File:Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033) (cropped)white.jpg
- File:Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033).jpg
- File:Darth Vader Supanova 2014.jpg
- File:Dragon Con 2013 Parade - Darth Vader (9680835452).jpg
- File:Eugene Celebration Parade-9.jpg
- File:Fan Expo 2014 - Darth Vader (14951367077).jpg
- File:Fan Expo 2014 - Princess Leia & Darth Vader (14951369457).jpg
- File:Fan Expo 2015 - Darth Vader & Yoda (21580250840).jpg
- File:Gen SW 2010 2.jpg
- File:Iron Man VS Darth Vader in CWT39 20150301a.jpg
- File:LBCE 2014 - Darth Vader (14312973521).jpg
- File:Long Beach Comic Expo 2011 - Darth Vader and his stormtroopers (5648076179).jpg
- File:Long Beach Comic Expo 2011 - Darth Vader and his stormtroopers (5648639304).jpg
- File:Malmö Pride 2017 (36401578456).jpg
- File:MCCC 07 - Star Wars family (829146514).jpg
- File:MCM 2013 - Darth Vader & Imperial Guard (8978157789).jpg
- File:Montreal Comiccon 2015 - Darth Vader (19290833428).jpg
- File:Montreal Comiccon 2015 - Imperial officer, Darth Vader and Boba Fett (19292183919).jpg
- File:NTF 2014 - Vader and Deadpool vs Assassin (15797906351).jpg
- File:NTF 2014 - Vader Choke (15800580642).jpg
- File:PAX 2008 - Darth Vader (2812267863).jpg
- File:PAX 2008 - Darth Vader (2812268409).jpg
- File:SDCC 2011 - Darth Vader (5973072099).jpg
- File:SnowTroopers.jpg
- File:St. Patrick's Day Parade, Armagh 2010 (12) - geograph.org.uk - 1757846.jpg
- File:St. Patrick's Day Parade, Armagh 2010 (7) - geograph.org.uk - 1757659.jpg
- File:Star Wars @ the Discovery Science Center - Darth Vader (7034250885).jpg
- File:Star Wars @ the Discovery Science Center - Darth Vader (7034250885a).jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration IV - Vader greets jet pack Boba Fett (4878286841).jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration Orlando Concept Vader and Stormtrooper 1.jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration Orlando Concept Vader and Stormtrooper 2.jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration V - 501st room - Darth Vader costume (4940988304).jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration V - 501st room - the Emperor, Royal Guards, and Darth Vader (4940402635).jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration V - 501st room - the Emperor, Royal Guards, and Darth Vader (4940990136).jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration V - Sith costumes and Leia (4943679265).jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration V - the happy couple and friends after the commitment ceremony (4940421543).jpg
- File:Star wars Characters.jpg
- File:SWC4 - "Listen Young Lady, When I Was Your Age..." (514060509).jpg
- File:SWC4 - Costume Pageant (518154818).jpg
- File:SWC4 - Fans on the Floor (512472703).jpg
- File:SWC4 - Live from Celebration IV (512684981).jpg
- File:SWCA - Darth Vader (17176938316).jpg
- File:SWCE - EuroVader (801375039).jpg
- File:WW Chicago 2015 - Darth Vader & Kylo Ren (20860854248).jpg
- File:WW Toronto 2012 - Darth Vader (6997592490).jpg
_cropped.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped)a.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped)white.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1757846.jpg){kind=link}
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1757659.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you read Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Costumes_and_cosplay Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Spiderman_and_child.jpg. As I understand it we need a case by case decision. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. It's fan cosplay. --Clodion (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:COSTUME - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:COSTUME, it's cosplay. --Archimëa (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Darth Vader's mask is a copyrighted. In Category:Darth Vader, photos showing Darth Vader's mask have been removed. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Darth Vader. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It's fan cosplay Jmex (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:COSTUME --Cody escouade delta (d) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It's fan cosplay. --Éric Messel-2 (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- COM:COSTUME says "If the costume is a completely original design (not based on any existing character design), and the designer has released it under a free license, it is permitted.". These are based on existing character designs. So, these are not permitted. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per MGA73's reasons. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cosplay of Darth Vader
[edit]COM:DW of a copyrighted character. And, COM:COSTUME says "If the costume is a completely original design (not based on any existing character design), and the designer has released it under a free license, it is permitted". These are based on a existing character design. So, these photo are not permitted.
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vader at Dragoncon 2010.jpg, Com:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cosplay of First Order Stormtroopers and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Darth Vader.
And, File:Darth vader cosplay (14049852150) (cropped).jpg has been deleted as copyvio.
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:Amsterdam - De Dam - Figure 1 (Darth Vader) cropped.JPG
- File:Amsterdam - De Dam - Figure 1 (Darth Vader).JPG
- File:C2E2 2014 - Darth Vader (14085522619).jpg
- File:Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033) (cropped).jpg
- File:Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033).jpg
- File:Star Wars @ the Discovery Science Center - Darth Vader (7034250885).jpg
- File:Star Wars @ the Discovery Science Center - Darth Vader (7034250885a).jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think that line from COM:COSTUME was meant to be taken as "if A, then B; therefore, if not A, then not B", but rather that photographs of potentially or otherwise non-free costumes have unclear status on Commons. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cosplay at NYCC (60421).jpg, Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/01#Sesame Street, and the last sentence of COM:COSTUME (Present consensus has adopted the view that in order to be a copyright violation, "[t]he photo would have to be primarily of the mask or other separable element of the costume, e.g. focusing on the expression inherent in the mask distinct from that of the general character."). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Needless to say, the mask is point. As you can see, these are photos wearing the mask. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per @MGA73: above. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Please see File:Darth vader cosplay (14049852150) (cropped).jpg. Photo of Darth Vader cosplay has been deleted as copyvio. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Info Please see these DRs. All nominated files have been deleted.
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cosplay of Clone troopers
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cosplay of Snowtroopers
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cosplay of Boushh
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cosplay of R2-D2
--Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cosplay of Darth Vader
[edit]The source file, File:Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033) (cropped).jpg, has been deleted. Wikimedia Commons is not able to keep these files.
- File:Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033) (cropped)a.jpg
- File:Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033) (cropped)white.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cosplay of Darth Vader
[edit]per the recently closed DR.
- File:Bob West with Vader.jpg
- File:C2E2 2013 - Ralph McQuarrie designed Darth Vader (8689082560).jpg
- File:Cinemaxx Copenhagen - Darth Vader.jpg
- File:Cinemaxx Copenhagen - Stormtroopers, Darth Vader and TIE fighter pilot.jpg
- File:Cinemaxx Copenhagen - Stormtroopers, TIE fighter pilot og Darth Vader.jpg
- File:Cosplayer of Darth Vader, Star Wars at PF23 20151025.jpg
- File:Darth Vader (starry background).jpg
- File:Darth Vader Supanova 2014.jpg
- File:Dragon Con 2013 Parade - Darth Vader (9680835452).jpg
- File:Fan Expo 2014 - Darth Vader (14951367077).jpg
- File:Fan Expo 2014 - Princess Leia & Darth Vader (14951369457).jpg
- File:Fan Expo 2015 - Darth Vader & Yoda (21580250840).jpg
- File:LG전자, 세계최대 3D 축제 개최.jpg
- File:Long Beach Comic Expo 2011 - Darth Vader and his stormtroopers (5648639304).jpg
- File:Malmö Pride 2017 (36401578456).jpg
- File:MCCC 07 - Star Wars family (829146514).jpg
- File:MCM 2013 - Darth Vader & Imperial Guard (8978157789).jpg
- File:SDCC 2011 - Darth Vader (5973072099).jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration IV - Vader greets jet pack Boba Fett (4878286841).jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration Orlando Concept Vader and Stormtrooper 1.jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration Orlando Concept Vader and Stormtrooper 2.jpg
- File:Star Wars Celebration V - 501st room - Darth Vader costume (4940988304).jpg
- File:WW Toronto 2012 - Darth Vader (6997592490).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Most of the pictures were kept above last year. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- That's a judgement made by a non-admin. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete in general. The design of Darth Vader most certainly is under copyright, and these are photographs of duplications/derivative works of that design. Mysterymanblue 08:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Star Wars is certainly under copyright, but costumes, in general, are “useful articles” categorically ineligible for copyright protection. (Many of these images also contain depictions of other characters, so separate inquiries would be required to determine the copyright status of those images.) The Copyright Office stated, in “Registrability of Costume Designs,” that costumes are useful articles, and thus could only be registered (for copyright protection) if they met the standards for separability. There are two methods by which a copyrightable work may be separated from a useful article: physically and conceptually. To be physically separable, the work and the article must be able to be separated physically. An example is a sculptured base to a lamp: the lamp is a useful article, while the sculptured base is a creative work. To be conceptually separable, while not being physically separable, it must be possible to imagine the work separate from the article. An example is a design printed on a shirt, or etched on the back of a chair: the design itself is physically connected to the work, but can be imagined as a separate work. A rather preliminary overview of the costumes here nominated does not indicate to me that there is a creative work which can be either physically or conceptually separated from the “useful article” costume. Therefore, I would keep these works as to the current deletion reason. A search through Copyright Office records buttresses my conclusion: while there is a registration for a Darth Vader sculpture, there is no registration for the costume itself, as would be expected if the costume was eligible for copyright. The closure of the earlier discussion was made by a user who is currently an administrator, and could close this discussion as an administrator on the same grounds. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. In an answer to the remark of TE(æ)A,ea, I do not think these costumes are useful articles. Some other costumes perhaps are useful. These are for playing and showing only. --Ellywa (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)