Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/11/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Richard_Walch.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![187 File:Данные по станице Арчединской из издания "Исторические и статистические описания станиц и городов Области Войска Донского".jpg](#File:Данные_по_станице_Арчединской_из_издания_"Исторические_и_статистические_описания_станиц_и_городов_Области_Войска_Донского".jpg){kind=link}
because I didn’t want to upload this photo. I wanted to upload a different photo Lori.ciccio (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Suppression image. erreur de ma part, merci 2A01:E0A:25:51C0:D81:DE69:A5:747E 08:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC).
Je devais tester sur WIKIPEDIA le texte de la legende sur ce blason car avant il ne s'affichait pas. J'ai du vectoriser la police. Je ne sais pas comment tester une image sur Wikipedia sans qu'elle soit directement pour tout le monde... Désolé — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauvymer (talk • contribs) 09:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. 7th deletion request of the same file.. --Achim (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Professional photographs copied from Zagato website. No evidence that Zagato has marked these as CC-SA-4. Ketil3 (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted already. --E4024 (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dervied from working drawings and guessswork, so the accuray of this reconstruction can't be relied upon... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Withdrawn I've just reconfirmed this is not only accurate to the original but it's very nearly spot on. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the withdrawl of this nomination. Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: User Withdrawn. ---akko (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Accuracy concern, despite being drawn with reference to the working drawings. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Oppose, unless there is another more accurate version of this image. Fry1989 eh? 17:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, you can fix it by yourself. ---akko (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Accuracy concern despite being drawn with respect to the working drawings ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Oppose, unless there is another more accurate version of this image. Fry1989 eh? 17:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, you can fix it by yourself. ---akko (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Accuray concern in the reconstruction despite the reconstruction being undertaken with respect to the working drawings by myself initally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- I do not oppose this nomination, as there are other versions of this image on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 17:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, you can fix it by yourself. ---akko (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by HosseinLashani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s). Out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 15:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I marked it with { SD|F10 } but as the file has been here three years, let's leave behind a deletion record. 
Speedy delete E4024 (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted already. --E4024 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. ArnabSaha (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. logo of a club. ArnabSaha (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 15:13, 25 November 2020 UTC: Commons:Licensing: non-trivial logo --Krdbot 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. logo of a club. ArnabSaha (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 15:13, 25 November 2020 UTC: Commons:Licensing: non-trivial logo --Krdbot 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. logo of a club. ArnabSaha (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 15:13, 25 November 2020 UTC: Commons:Licensing: non-trivial logo --Krdbot 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. logo of a club. improperly licensed. ArnabSaha (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 15:13, 25 November 2020 UTC: Commons:Licensing: non-trivial logo --Krdbot 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Lo subí por error Yungelita (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yungelita, yo me imagino que Vd no habla inglés. Esto se nota de la mala traducción de Google que ha utilizado el otro día. Entiendo que tiene un problema de revelar su intimidad o la de otra persona que desea reparar. Lo primero que hay que hacer es asegurarse que el archivo no esté usado en ninguna parte. Lo otro, naturalmente no hacer más "updates" que le puede causar un largo "block". Espero que se porte de una manera más colaborativo para no estar aislada (de las personas que trabajamos aquí como voluntarios y solo deseamos ayudarla) y hasta ser impedida de trabajar aquí. Saludos. --E4024 (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by E4024 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7
Seems uploader requested a deletion when looking through history. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I marked it as G7 due to uploader request of deletion on same day. (If you saw there already was a DR, Dear Admin, why did you open another one? :) --E4024 (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This does seem out of scope. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude artistic.jpg, we have plenty of images of nude women already. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment worth noting that the G7 tag was declined due to this ongoing discussion. CCing involved parties above @Billinghurst and E4024: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- "This discussion"? There was/is a discussion opened 8 and a half hours before this one, Doc. --E4024 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: We cannot speedy delete files that have been present from June 2020, even when the uploader adds a new version today. I have to leave some comment against the conversion from decline speedy to DR rather than just remove the tag. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. It has no importance at all, but if I were you and wanted to remove the SD tag, I would simply remove it, as there already was a DR. IMHO that was the correct way. Take care. E4024 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- "This discussion"? There was/is a discussion opened 8 and a half hours before this one, Doc. --E4024 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep In use (and therefore in scope). Was added to vi:Khỏa thân by the uploader on 17 October 2020, before it was cropped and more than one month before this request! Unless a Vietnamese speaker can shed some light on this, surely deletion requires a stronger rationale than "uploaded in error"? Brianjd (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete Per comments below, not own work and no evidence of licence from copyright owner. Brianjd (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment The uploader's changes to this file have been reported to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Yungelita. Brianjd (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)- Delete as a courtesy, and because I am not sure this is the work of the subject. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Why do you think this is not the work of the subject? Why does it matter anyway? Brianjd (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: She claimed "I don't want to people close to me to see me naked" in the comment of her "own work" upload of 07:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC). I find it impossible that she took this with a self-timer on a very high tripod or dresser because there is no self-timer indicated in the raw metadata per http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi , and I see no trigger device in her visible hands. It is likely that the photo was instead taken by a tall person other than the uploader, and that we need permission from that tall person. The photo also exhibits poor lighting on the subject's face, and is only 1,743 × 2,868 pixels, or less than 5 megapixels. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Why do you think this is not the work of the subject? Why does it matter anyway? Brianjd (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hola E4024 , Gracias por el apoyo, ya no moveré absolutamente nada, dejaré que las cosas se solucionen Esta foto obviamente yo no la tomé, la tomó alguien cercano a mí. Por razones personales y didácticas la coloqué en Wikimedia, ya que pensaba que nadie cercano a mí la iba a ver, pero recientemente, alguien la vio, y pues quisiera revertir la foto, sé que he hecho edits utilizando fotos de mi cuerpo y es por fines didácticos, y en dichas fotos no se ve mi cara "Hairy Vulva of a young woman" pero en las dos fotos que pedí que retiraran sí se ve y ahí está el problema. Espero poder seguir colaborando con Wikimedia con fotos de fines didácticos y contar con su apoyo (admins) para resolver esto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iammeandme (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Lo subí por error Yungelita (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Do you want to delete it because the woman in the image had no idea that you would upload it here? Is that the reason now you want to change your username in Commons? / La desea borrar pq la mujer en la imagen se opuso a su presencia en la red? Eso tiene algo que ver también con su deseo de cambiar el nombre de usuario? (Por qué necesita "suplantación de identidad"?) Salu2. --E4024 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: Answers in Special:Diff/514164920 (by uploader):
- Hello, the file belongs to me, I am the woman in the photograph, however I do not want it in Wikimedia because I don't want people close to me to see me naked.
- The reason for the user name change is because he belongs to a public figure and I don't want to steal his identity (Yungelita), so I asked for the user name change.
- I changed the photo numerous times because I thought that this way my photos will be speedy deleted.
- These comments were for File:Nude artistic.jpg, but I assume they apply to this file too. Brianjd (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: Answers in Special:Diff/514164920 (by uploader):
- I understand Yungelita is suffering for a mistake they have made, and changing the image, taking the risk to be blocked again. I had marked this file for speedy deletion and now I am making a call to our dear admins to speedy delete it. --E4024 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: What mistake exactly? If it's merely that they uploaded a photo of themselves naked, note that they also added an identifiable photo of themselves naked to the Vietnamese Wikipedia and left it up for over a month. Is there a limit to this, or do we always courtesy delete naked photos? Brianjd (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by E4024 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7 In history uploader requested deletion — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete seems out of scope. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude artistic.jpg, we have plenty of images of nude women already. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per Gbawden's closing rationale for File:Nude artistic.jpg We don't have that many photos of unshaven women so I would have kept it and my comments above. Also note that this file was uploaded more than five months ago and the uploader cropped the file during this discussion. Brianjd (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per uploader's comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked slim woman 2.jpg, not own work and no evidence of licence from copyright owner. Brianjd (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Because i don't want to compromise my Privacy showing my face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iammeandme (talk • contribs) 05:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 05:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
unused, useless, not cat, no encyclopedic value, etc F (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Emmy Flame (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self promo on enwp.
Minoraxtalk 11:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15561659860).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15746509615).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque 34
[edit]No FOP in Morocco
- File:Arcs de la Mosquée Hassan-II.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque - Grande Mosquée Hassan II.jpg
- File:Mosque Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco, 摩洺哥.jpg
- File:MOSQUEE HASSAN II.jpg
- File:Mosquée Hassan II -2.jpg
- File:Mustapha ennaimi - 23768064204.jpg
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Furthermore File:MOSQUEE HASSAN II.jpg is previously published and would need a separate VRT permission from the photographer even if we obtained a general permission for the mosque. ~Cybularny Speak? 13:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque 35
[edit]No FOP in Morocco
- File:Casablanca, Morocco (51256636929).jpg
- File:الدار البيضاء مسجد الحسن الثاني.jpg
- File:جامع الحسن الثاني.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jamesmuyumba (talk · contribs)
[edit]These look to be PR shots and are unlikely to be the uploader's own work.
Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Image is essentially blank. --ghouston (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I found this kid in Category:Designers from Morocco. If we could see his face, maybe we could keep him as a child, but as it is I see no scope here. E4024 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Own work claim requires OTRS permission, I guess. E4024 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Own work claim requires OTRS permission, I guess. E4024 (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this a photo, drawing or some kind of DW? User behaviour (see their TP please) makes me doubt the own work claim. E4024 (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No valid source, does not appear to be licensed correctly. Jeanjung212 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, not "own work", probably taken from a YouTube video, likely not free. Dylsss (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
This is almost certainly a screengrab from a television appearance of the subject, and therefore not the uploader's own work in the sense relevant to Commons. Copyright would belong to the television studio. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Notice the definition. Pkeets (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- What definition? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- In the photo. Screengrabs are blurry, low resolution. Pkeets (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- That might make it fair use; resolution has nothing to do with how an image is licensed, however. Low resolution does not automatically confer a CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence on an image. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- In the photo. Screengrabs are blurry, low resolution. Pkeets (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- What definition? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader admits this is a copyrighted screengrab. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Pkeets' comments above. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per the uploaders deleted comments - this is a copyrighted image. @Pkeets: please review Commons:Licensing, as annoying as it is, that's not how copyright works. Aluxosm (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused file. Personal artwork. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused file. No location and only half the fountain visible. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Image without source. Olou (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from author Ketan Pandit is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I doubt this person is in scope. E4024 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: title screen of a TV serial CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyvio:photograph of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
File:Path Dependency and the International Conferences on Afghanistan (from Bonn 2001 to Bonn 2011).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: characters seem to come from the cartoon Steven Universe CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ali akbar bot (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Mukhtyar khan khushk.jpg
- File:Yumna zaidi vg.jpg
- File:Yumna and shark putla.jpg
- File:Yumna zaidi.jpg
- File:Aeyza khan.jpg
- File:Fahad mustafa Rockstar.jpg
- File:Alizeh shah b.jpg
- File:Ghadi dhani rh.jpg
- File:Pakistani flying.jpg
- File:Balosi kak.jpg
- File:Balosi kak 98386.jpg
- File:Balosi kak 3338201.jpg
- File:Hosh mohammad jhfd.jpg
- File:Hosh mohammad sg.jpg
- File:Hosh mohammad gdd.jpg
- File:Hosh mohammad shiidis.jpg
- File:Hosho hf.jpg
- File:Hosho sipahi.jpg
- File:Hosh mohammad.jpg
- File:Hosho hog.jpg
- File:Hosh mohammad shidi.jpg
- File:Khalid Lund ghf do nv.jpg
- File:Khalid Lund gf.jpg
- File:Khalid Lund ghf.jpg
- File:Khalid lound.jpg
- File:Khalid Lund chx.jpg
- File:Khalid lund.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by The Incognito Guy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by سید حسین حسینی انیماتور (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope.
- File:Poster Amir.jpg
- File:Cover amir & saraf.jpg
- File:ٔٔنوجوانه.png
- File:Ayar barzani IG seyd hossein hosseini art ya ali000092.jpg
- File:Ayar barzani.jpg
- File:IG seyd hossin hosseini art faramarz ayar barzani.jpg
Hanooz 15:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused map of questionable notability. Should be in MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Caciquedelcibao (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leomichis Corp (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. Low quality.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manuelparadag (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Benji Krol 1.jpg
- File:PerthTanapon 2.jpg
- File:Ad1c411316e01d4a8edd6d7cf9aba1050cc88a5dr1-735-1104v2 uhq.jpg
- File:6d29fefa6ec5a341f16e026421cc98cd5d2a111er1-720-900v2 uhq.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hassan Nageh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vivekmandal123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Srima Dissanayake 1.jpg
- File:Sunil Handunnetti-1.jpg
- File:Sunil Handunnetti.jpg
- File:N M Perera 2.png
- File:Somawansa JVP.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete The N. M. Perera image is in wide circulation on the web - there's even a non-free version of on English Wikipedia. The Srima Dissanayake is also in circulation - e.g. Daily News.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Filippo Fadini (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art and promo photos. I think artist identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:MTCLSI.jpg
- File:PERFORMANCE.jpg
- File:CATACOMBE.jpg
- File:Filippo Fadini.jpg
- File:DRAGO INVISIBILE.jpg
- File:EMERXION.jpg
- File:Diluvio.jpg
- File:FIGA.jpg
- File:METHADRAGON.jpg
- File:METHA 001.jpg
- File:ENERGHIA.jpg
- File:Metha.jpg
- File:PRIGIONA sacra.jpg
- File:FADINI D.E. ART.jpg
- File:FADINI D.E..jpg
- File:FILIPPO FADINI PAINTER.jpg
- File:DR.1 FILIPPO FADINI.jpg
- File:AMORVINCITOMNIA ELE.jpg
- File:PRANZANDO.jpg
- File:IL GRANDE PESCE.jpg
- File:2) Ex Ungue Draco.jpg
- File:INQUIETAS.jpg
- File:Mazzo metafisico.jpg
- File:PRESAGIO.jpg
- File:PALINGENESI.jpg
- File:PRIGIONA.jpg
- File:METACLISI.jpg
_Ex_Ungue_Draco.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlegroBravo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Olympic - studio.jpg
- File:Martin Vajgl.jpg
- File:Pavel Březina.jpg
- File:Martin Motýl.JPG
- File:Bobr&Motýl 2003.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Justin Nanak (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CesarRoCha97 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Photographer: Nico Alsemgeest, uploader: Dennis Douma. But I don't see the required permission from Alsemgeest. So this might be copyright violation. JopkeB (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Personal photo w-o educational use Drakosh (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
clearly a copyvio and not own work Praxidicae (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
out of scope- personal photo for non wikipedian Faisal talk 17:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
out of scope- personal photo for non wikipedian Faisal talk 17:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
out of scope- personal photo for non wikipedian Faisal talk 17:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Agriculture environment satellite (talk · contribs)
[edit]Starling company marketing material.
MKFI (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Permission needed if in scope. --Minoraxtalk 08:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Blurry photo; will not serve anything. We have other "imams" with their professional clothing. (Normally they should not use it out of professional activities, in the mosque, cemetery etc, but seemingly this one has crossed the street for a tea or something and going back to the mosque just in front.) E4024 (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused image without educational content. Unused. Looks like a test file. GeorgHH • talk 19:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hafsat i sd (talk · contribs)
[edit]A private image gallery, all unused. No other contributions by uploader.
GeorgHH • talk 19:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Almost duplicate of Bahchisaraytsev revenue house - front Buddenovsky2.jpg Alexander Roumega (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Advertising Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 08:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Advertising Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 08:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Calvary of the sicks (Lourdes)
[edit]Artworks by the contemporary artist Maria de Faykod. No freedom of panorama in France.
- File:Calvary of the Sick 001 01 komplett.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 001 02 Haende.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 001 03 Antlitz.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 002 Jesus mit Kreuz.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 003 01 komplett.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 003 02 Detail.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 003.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 004 01 Jesus begegnet seiner Mutter.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 004 02 Kranke mit Helferinnen.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 004.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 005 Simon von Cyrene.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 005.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 006 mein lieber Sohn.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 007 zum zweiten Mal.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 008 Frauen von Jerusalem Detail.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 008 Frauen von Jerusalem.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 008.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 009 zum dritten Mal.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 010 Jesus wird seiner Kleider beraubt.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 011 Jesus wird an's Kreuz genagelt.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 012 Kreuzigung Jesu.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 012.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 013 Jesus wird vom Kreuz abgenommen.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 014 Jesus wird in's Grab gelegt.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 015 Maria in Erwartung der Auferstehung.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 016 Wundmale Christi.jpg
- File:Calvary of the Sick 016.jpg
Chassipress (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Advertising Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
See also same request Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Skripnyak.
Also suspicious files:
- File:Skrupnyakart.jpg
- File:Тату на кисти глаз.jpg
- File:Тату рукав исполнен в Днепропетровске.jpg
- File:David tattoo star.jpg
- File:Тату архангела.jpg
- File:Тату узоры на предплечье.jpg
- File:Перекрытие старых татуировок в Cover up tattoo.jpg
- File:Нео традишнл тату череп.jpg
- File:Моряк папай татуировка.jpg
- File:Лучшая татуировка крыла на предплечье.jpg
- File:Леопард на предплечье тату.jpg
- File:Лев татуировки на ноге.jpg
- File:Тату футболистов украины.jpg
- File:The ukrainian tattoo artist.jpg
- File:TLD design.jpg
- File:Украинские тату.jpg
- File:Тату монаха.jpg
- File:The ukraine tattoo artist.jpg
- File:Tattoo time.jpg
- File:Tattoo artist Ukraine Yavtushenko.jpg
- File:Black gray tattoo.jpg
- File:Череп на плече тату.jpg
- File:Татуировка нептун.jpg
- File:Татуировка Пирата.jpg
- File:Татуировка Викингов.jpg
- File:Тату на предплечье.jpg
- File:Тату рыба шишка.jpg
- File:Тату рукав религиозный.jpg
- File:Тату иудеев.jpg
- File:Татуировка портретная.jpg
- File:Тату рукав в процессе.jpg
- File:Тату олд скул.jpg
--Микола Василечко (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Advertising Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 08:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'ts chicane as well as copyright violation Hjart (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Support - Should really be deleted. Nothing else to say. It has no useful usage.--SimmeD (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Self-promotion file, unused. Uploaders single file. GeorgHH • talk 21:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ritu.tibrewala (talk · contribs)
[edit]No valid license. The OTRS ticket also does not mention a license.
- File:S P Jain's campus in Dubai.jpg
- File:Campus picture of S P Jain.jpg
- File:S P Jain's Singapore campus.jpg
Didym (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 05:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 05:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
not notable. out of com:PS. Hanooz 15:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is copyvio. There is no indication that the authors Jutta Braun and Michael Barsuhn agreed to free licensing. Moreover, this is a book chapter from a copyrighted book (publisher: Verlag Die Werkstatt) and there is no indication whatsoever that the publisher agreed. I think deletion is absolutely necessary. Mautpreller (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raqueltbarb (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No proof of authorship. Likely printscreen of a Czech TV series. Same applies to File:Bibi 2.png. Gumruch (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Already deleted 2019-06-16, re-uploaded one day later. Gumruch (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
derivative work, copyvio Praxidicae (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems like screenshot or photo of photo, I suspect copyright violation. In addition, quality is bad, in my opinion the photo is out of project scope as well. Taivo (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be licensed correctly given other uploads by this user Simeon (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of mural Runopuu ("Poetry tree") by Finnish artist Teemu Mäenpää (born 1977). No Freedom of Panorama for paintings in Finland. Not in PD yet. Mural is main subject. Htm (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Low quality - no valuable image Ysogo (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Low quality - no valuable image Ysogo (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Low quality - no valuable image Ysogo (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Low quality - no valuable image Ysogo (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Low quality - no valuable image Ysogo (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Low quality - no valuable image Ysogo (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Low quality - no valuable image Ysogo (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Low quality - no valuable image Ysogo (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
ähnelt sehr stark https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FSSP_emblem.svg und ist wahrscheinlich auch kein eigenes Werk. Außerdem überflüssig, weil doppelt GerritR (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Photo by Markus Helander. No obvious proof that uploader is author. Needs permission via OTRS. Htm (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
_Richard_Walch.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Richard_Walch.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader is not the fotographer Bahnmoeller (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
_Richard_Walch.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
_Richard_Walch.jpg){kind=link}
Uploader is not the fotographer Bahnmoeller (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by IvanHorvat99 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work, no EXIF data.
- File:Dinamova igračica u dresu hrvatske ženske nogometne reprezentacije do 17 godina.png
- File:Dinamova sedmica u akciji.png
- File:Margareta Kovačević u dresu hrvatske ženske nogometne reprezentacije do 17 godina.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted film image improperly uploaded to Commons 172.115.30.178 22:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
unused file, too poor quality Papuass (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No permission from author daniil_rabovsky Venzz (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Removing private information, cluthered outdated picture XoReP (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission from original websiete. --Polarlys (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Non notable French writer. French Wikipedia article deleted. Ankry (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- A removing request from the subject. I think we can perform it. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Cluthered private picture XoReP (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- The cluthered private picture is being used by 2 (two) WPs, therefore? --E4024 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: source: www.xornet.nl | Mini4stroke.net, no permission. --Polarlys (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No exif info, seems not uploader's own work. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Photo is unlikely to be "own work", has UWW logo as well Simeon (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. https://www.sportskeeda.com/slideshow/swot-analysis-of-the-top-5-teams-in-the-i-league ArnabSaha (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Svg rendering error, revised version uploaded. BrandonJCox (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicated file. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Svg render error BrandonJCox (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
svg render error BrandonJCox (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect crop BrandonJCox (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @BrandonJCox: Now OK? (｀・ω・´) (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation of official portal *angys* (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing. No permission. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Collage of two unidentified images. E4024 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:DW. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a UWW photo - unlikely to be licensed correctly Simeon (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Given other uploads by this user, I think it's unlikely that this photo is licensed correctly Simeon (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems too sophisticated to be an "own work". E4024 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely to be own work. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, photograph of softwares CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Procedan a borrarla, la imagen no se usa y no es presentativa. --MadriCR (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:DW. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: screenshot of an application CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not used. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
and File:Vloria-Entertainment-logo.png
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not used files. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
out of com:PS. Hanooz 15:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: seems to be a presentation from a company CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, promotional. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by the uploader as Speedy for "Doresc ca o parte din contributiile propri sa dispara de pe pagina wiki".
Converted to regular DR as image does not qualify for speedy deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Image had been tagged by uploader for speedy deletion for "Immagine non necessaria".
Converted to regular DR, as image does not qualify for speedy deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Historical documentation of a meeting that will never come again. No reason for deletion given. --LexICon (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why does the photo have to be deleted? Stefan Heid personally made the portrait photo available to me. What do I have to do ?--Docmo (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Docmo: Provide a written consent by the photographer (not Stefan Heid!) that this file can be used under the given license. See Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No permission found in OTRS system. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, monument built in 1972. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, monument built in 1972. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Господин Румега методично номинирует к удалению мои файлы, Не хочу комментировать подобную деятельность, но в его работах имеются такие, которые можно с такой же причиной номинировать (например, File:Bogaty Well July 2020.jpg). Мы пытаемся помочь Википедии фотографиями, а такие господа, ка Александр Румега, не могут найти себе лучшего применения, как уничтожать чужие работы, не замечая своих подобных ошибок.
Deleted: per nomination, monument built in 1972. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, monument built in 1972. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Architectural concept drawing, OTRS permission needed. MKFI (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no permission. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Rather interestingly, this file is both cropped in a weird format and not in the right font. This is the first time I've used Inkscape before, and the file looks correct in the editor and when opened in a browser, but it looks wonky when uploaded to Commons. If someone knows the fix to this, it would be greatly appreciated, otherwise it should be deleted. Jordano53 (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- After some trial and error, I fixed the graphic. The file shouldn't be deleted. Jordano53 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Please correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I know, most of the British logos (Sports Interactive is a British company) are protected by copyright, so I think it's above COM:TOO UK, isn't? Kirilloparma (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Many thanks Kirilloparma for raising this as the threshold of originality in the UK is indeed very (and some would say strangely) low. HOWEVER, it is my opinion that this specific instance of a logo manages to fall under even that very low bar. Commons guidance, in the preceding link, is based on a court case in the UK about the "EDGE" logo; and the community discussion about this in a subsequent deletion request. The guidance links to that DR, but I have linked to it here for ease of reference: Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos. In that DR the logo under scrutiny was said to look "more complex than the Edge logo", however in this case, the "FOOTBALL MANAGER" logo looks less complex. It would seem that this logo merely consists of capital letters, nothing more; whereas the Edge logo had some tweaks to the letters as described in the judges comments:
Dr Langdell submitted that the claimant can have no copyright in its EDGE logo because it is not original over the Franklin Gothic typeface. I do not accept this submission. The stretching of the font was combined with the distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the "E". What is required for artistic originality is the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work: see Copinger and Skone James on Copyright 16th Ed at 3-130 and Ladbroke v. William Hill [1964] 1 WLR 273 at 287. The claimant's logo is original within this test.
- There is no such stretching or distinctive projections in the Football Manager letters, so I would say the judges "test" would not be satisfied in this case as there appears to be no artistic originality at all.
- Also, I have had a look on the UK Government's official repository of Trade Marks and, in my opinion, there does seem to be a fundamental difference. Please compare the two Trade Mark searches for "FOOTBALL MANAGER" and "EDGE" (scroll down a bit for the Edge logo). It can be seen that where there is a graphical or non pure-text logo, (as with Edge) the 'Mark type' is stated as 'Figurative' whereas, in the case of Football Manager, the Mark type is stated as 'Word'. In the case of the figurative logos: a true-representation of how the logo will actually appear is depicted, whereas with a word logo this isn't necessary. Hence the Edge logo is depicted with its distinctive letter-tweaks, whereas Football Manager is not. I would hence submit that the Football Manager logo is fundamentally different, in that it appears that the word or phrase "Football Manager" is trademarked and not any graphical or artistic representation of this. Hence there can be no artistic originality in this logo and so, by definition, must be below the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. Thanks. -- Crep1711 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2020
Info The above is purely academic now as Krd has just confirmed OTRS permission for free use has now been received from Sports Interactive, and the file has now been marked as such. Thanks. Crep1711 (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: otrs permission provided. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Bears a watermark from "The Old Map Shop", likely neither own work nor eligible for CC licencing. Sumanuil (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Old illustration very likely to be PD. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
better image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jorge_trigo_andia.jpg 51114u9 05:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
better image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cementerio_General_de_Cochabamba_Portada_006.jpg 51114u9 05:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
better image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cementerio_General_de_Cochabamba_Portada_006.jpg 51114u9 05:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1), missing exif, low resolution, probably taken from [1] C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Private picture with no educational value. Tekstman (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Per admission by the uploader (see: File talk:AMRV2832.jpg) this image is not his own work. I asked him to notify the one external re-user, which I could identify, and he stated he did so. Per COM:PRP, deletion of this image seems to be justified. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Still haven't heard back from archinform, but i'm guessing that the images are automatically put up and taken from Wikimedia. So if removed from this site, it will almost certainly be removed from that site as the other 4 have been. re: https://www.archinform.net/arch/216724.htm November 21, 2020
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
inappropriate content Kotofey2016 (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: That's not a valid criterion.Sumanuil (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: just another low-quality penis photo. --Polarlys (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
inappropriate content Kotofey2016 (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: That's not a valid criterion.Sumanuil (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: just another low-quality penis photo. --Polarlys (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
unused self-advertisement Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
no indication for claimed license at given source url - please check Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
no indication for claimed license at source url (page says "Copyright © 2020 Find a Grave") Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Blatant hoax. The file description claims that an image like this can appear in the video game "Minecraft", which is untrue, and if it wasn't untrue, this image would probably be a copyright violation instead and should still be deleted. Another obviously untrue claim the file description makes is that a visual stimulus alone is somehow capable of causing broken bones. 82.203.164.146 10:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
File:Ours What At One Time Was A Slow Paced Existence Has Become For The Most Part An Exiting High Paced Voyage,-In Front Of Us The Monitor Displaying It's Multi Task Itinuary - -The Death Of Television Is Melt The 2013-07-09 11-32.jpg
[edit]
Unused file. Personal artwork. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Taken from the net where it was published in several places. E4024 (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOY, toys, like this plush toy, are eligible for copyright. 82.203.164.146 12:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
copyvio. taken from elsewhere. ArnabSaha (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. taken from elsewhere. original owner's watermark is also visible ArnabSaha (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. taken from sportskeeda.com ArnabSaha (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
uploaded others work. no proper file info in Metadata. and the uploader and author's names are different. ArnabSaha (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
taken from elsewhere. https://twitter.com/abhijitmitra09/status/1168883788782493696 ArnabSaha (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. its someones artwork/design published in 1989 ArnabSaha (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio. ArnabSaha (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio/improperly licensed. ArnabSaha (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Black Sea Arena
[edit]This architecture was opened in 2016 per enwiki, and designed by German firm Drei Architekten. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Sadly, Georgia has no Commons-acceptable FoP. No recent news about an attempt to lobby the Georgian government to amend its copyright law to remove restriction on commercial use of photographic reproductions of copyrighted Georgian architecture and sculptures.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Glorious 93 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The Karaiskakis Stadium was built in the early 2000s. As a result and since there's no FOP in Greece, this picture should be deleted. This is not CSD case. Regasterios (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not free to use ShadZ01 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. -- Geagea (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Third image in https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2019-09-20/emmys-fleabag-sian-clifford-claire credited to "Sian Clifford of “Fleabag” poses for a portrait at the Langham Huntington in Pasadena.(Corey Nickols / Contour by Getty Images)" - not likely own work by our uploader User:Raphphillips. GRuban (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
None of the two versions seem to be an own work, as opposed to the uploader's claim, IMHO. E4024 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. This does seem out of scope, we have plenty of images of nude women and genitalia diagrams already. This one doesn't add any value. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
From a copyrighted publication - https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-111240 - and editor has not asserted identity as an author of that article Elmidae (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dang, I am familiar with the work, really liked the map. Was pleasantly surprised to see it offered for free, and just about to use it when I read this. Oh well! Leo Breman (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No GWOIA license found on source webpage. Larryasou (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Нарушение в лицензировании. Указано, что файл создан в 2020 году, хотя в описании 1960. Вероятно, что загрузивший не является автором. Исходя из предыдущих его загрузок. — Redboston 14:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Успенско-Никольский храм и бронзовый бюст последнего российского императора Николая II в Арчединской.jpg
[edit]
Нарушения в лицензировании. Датой создания указан ноябрь 2020, хотя на фото лето. Вероятно, что и автором не является загрузивший, исходя из истории его загрузок. — Redboston 14:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Данные по станице Арчединской из издания "Исторические и статистические описания станиц и городов Области Войска Донского".jpg
[edit]
Нет необходимости сохранять как файлы отдельные страницы книги, которая доступна Викискладе. — Redboston 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused Wikipedia screenshots.
- File:PreviewPopup Arrow Clip Explanation.png
- File:Popup AntEater Screenshot AboveRight.png
- File:Popup-Sloth-Anteater-BelowAfter.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The above files are about to be used in a WikiMedia technical blog. Please don't delete.
This can be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomsterio (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Empty categ, files relocated at Category:Group photographs of Uruguay national association football team - Fma12 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fma12: Why not use {{Category redirect}}? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: I thought that deleting the category should be more appropriate, so the category, although redirected, remains active. Fma12 (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, likely to be used by others, has had this name for almost three years, wrong process used. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment in reply to Jeff G: 1) It was me who created this category, this was in use for about 3 years but I realised that there was another category ("group photographs of...)" more appropiate to locate this type of files. 2) Why "wrong process"? this is not the first time I nominate a category to be deleted. Not wrong at all. - Fma12 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Fma12: Please see COM:CFD and COM:DP#Categories. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 23:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
posted by the owner of the company to promote same Jimfbleak (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Info: See also User talk:Jimfbleak#DR - uploader Etsekson responds this "is meant to be historically informative" and "is in no way self serving as the Olympic Truck Company went out of business in 1929 - and Ben's Truck Parts went out of business in 1996."
- So I don't think the self-promotion premise applies. I think a historical picture like this would be realistically useful for an educational purpose and so would be within scope. However, a final decision on whether it can be kept does depend on its licensing status.
Question: @Etsekson: Please can you confirm who painted the painting, and when? You said the image was your "own work" in the Summary section of this file; did you mean the photograph is your own work, the painting is your own work (i.e. you painted it yourself?) or both? If you didn't paint this yourself: what do you know about the artist? Are they still alive? Have they given their permission to freely release their work? We need to know a little more about the painting's provenance, so please provide as much information as you can about this. Thanks. -- Crep1711 (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: missing info as per User:Crep171166. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Per User:Fæ's concern about documents marked as Crown Copyright but not outright marked as OGL. This document is derived from information from a Working drawing with this issue. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Too simple to have a copyright. --Yann (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:African Renaissance Monument 1
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Senegal: non-free (2010) monument.
- File:A Maersk truck driving in front of the African Renaissance Monument in Dakar, Senegal.jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument (5502494604).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument (5503209541).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument (5538226284).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument - From Above (5556496295).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument - From Above (5556503597).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument - From Above (5556513069).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument - From Above (5557084924).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument - From Above (5557094050).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument - From Above (5557101948).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument.jpg
- File:Africanrenaissance.JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (10).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (11).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (12).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (13).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (14).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (2).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (3).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (4).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (6).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (8).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine (9).JPG
- File:Dakar - Monument de la renaissance africaine.JPG
- File:Monument de la renaissance africaine, Dakar, senegal 2013-04-07 02-26.jpg
- File:Monument de la Renaissance africaine, vue arrière.JPG
- File:Monument from afar (5334156462).jpg
- File:Monument renaissance africaine.JPG
- File:Monument Renaissance Africaine.JPG
- File:Obvious (5874610448).jpg
- File:Projet de monument Renaissance.jpg
- File:Renaissance africaine.jpg
.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&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}
.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}
Eleassar (t/p) 09:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment These need to be looked individually, as some such as File:Monument from afar (5334156462).jpg are clearly de minimis. russavia (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all de minimis, considering that the title of the image is "monument from afar" and that the caption says "A view of the African Renaissance Monument from Ouakam. Wish the shot came out clearer. Next time." --Eleassar (t/p) 11:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest the name the uploader chose for the image is not particularly relevant. Below I asked "What if File:African Renaissance Monument (5502494604).jpg had been named File:New construction in Senegal, with the African Renaissance Monument in the background -a.jpg?" My suggested alternate name is more accurate, and I suggest illustrates why our conclusions should not rely on the images' names. Geo Swan (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I find FOP highly counter-intuitive. Some countries, like France, have troubling, idiosyncratic FOP rules. I am cutting and pasting the short Senegal section:
- There is no freedom of panorama in Senegal. In fact the Senegal's law is very similar to the french law. The Loi 2008-09 du 25 janvier 2008 sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins au Senegal, (article 46) (Archive) says that it not possible to reproduce an artwork if it's the main subject of the photo or it is for commercial purpose (source: Bureau Sénégalais du Droit d'Auteur).
- « L’auteur ne peut interdire la reproduction ou la communication d'une oeuvre graphique ou plastique située en permanence dans un endroit ouvert au public, sauf si l'image de l’oeuvre est le sujet principal d'une telle reproduction, radiodiffusion ou communication et si elle est utilisée à des fins commerciales. » (Official link) (Archive)
- The question still on: does it apply to things before 2008?
- Heck! COM:FOP#Senegal says "Senegal's law is very similar to the french law."
- File:African Renaissance Monument (5538226284).jpg only shows the monument, but File:A Maersk truck driving in front of the African Renaissance Monument in Dakar, Senegal.jpg showed a truck in front of the monument -- the truck is larger than the monument. What if File:African Renaissance Monument (5502494604).jpg had been named File:New construction in Senegal, with the African Renaissance Monument in the background -a.jpg? I suggest that when we know there are images that comply with COM:FOP#Senegal, because the monument is just one element in a wider picture we should not be considering removing this category, because those compliant images belong in it. Further, I suggest our nominator could have saved the rest of us a lot of time. I suggest our nominator shouldn't have nominated the category, and everything in it -- since they recognized some of the images were FOP compliant. Rather I think they should have made a mass nomination of images that did not include those images they were sure were FOP compliant. Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Good day Eleassar,
I regret to state that I understand too well what the fuss is about!
So the French law, or the Senegalese law, or the Yankee laws say that... but please realize that in the whole world laws are so numerous and so complex that, at any time, anyone can be reproached something!! I believe you may be staying in Slovenia. Did you country and society did not suffer enough of censorship during the communist rule? Would you really prefer to see it now replaced by United States dictatorship and thought control??
Judging at the continuous vanishing of images, the trend appears to move towards a Wikipedia with no picture at all! But make no mistake, when the images and pictures will be all gone, then the attack will be against the text, any form of free thinking text...
Now, to answer your remarks squarely: the "Projet de monument Renaissance" is mostly a photograph of a public poster describing the project while the monument itself is only shown by its basement and occupies only the top of the picture.
The "Renaissance africaine" is not really a picture of a work of art, but of workings, as a North-Korean company was then building this stalinian style and controversial monument. I also believe the picture marvelously describes the political situation then prevalent in Senegal: the family chief has no head while his partner and their child have theirs in full...
Finally I add what cannot be shown by the picture: that the whole group is not looking towards the North (former colonial powers) nor to the East (holy cities) but to the North-West: the all invading, overbearing and bankrupt United States...
Regards,
B.J. Noël
- Ad Geo Swan: thanks for having provided the excerpt of the relevant article from the copyright act.
- As to File:African Renaissance Monument (5502494604).jpg, what is relevant per COM:DM is whether the photographer's intent was to reproduce the monument or something else. Per the title in flickr ('monument from afar') and the description ('A view of the African Renaissance Monument from Ouakam. Wish the shot came out clearer. Next time.') the intent is clear, and there is no good reason to pretend it was something else.
- As to File:A Maersk truck driving in front of the African Renaissance Monument in Dakar, Senegal.jpg, the monument is clearly one of the two principal subjects. I don't object to cropping this image though. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ad B.J. Noël: Thanks for your opinion, but the purpose of this page is not a political discussion about the scope of Commons and Wikipedia (you can try opening it elsewhere), but whether the nominated images are free or not.
- File:Projet de monument Renaissance.jpg - the poster itself is just as much copyrightable as the monument. There is no exception in the law for 2D works.
- File:Renaissance africaine.jpg - the photograph shows the majority of the copyrighted monument, and parts of author's works are copyrightable too. -Eleassar (t/p) 10:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- In File:African Renaissance Monument (5502494604).jpg the intention might have been to take a photo of the monument, but the result is a photo of the city with the monument - probably a camera in a kite is difficult to point accurately. I don't see this image different from photos of the Louvre with its de minimis copyrighted pyramid.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Per COM:DM, the intent is of the key importance in deciding whether a work is de minimis or not: "If the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." The prime difference between this image and the Louvre image is that whereas the Louvre image was taken primarily to depict the square and not the pyramid, this one has been taken to depict the monument. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean that if file name and description were "Buildings in Dakar" it would be OK to keep under de minimis? We can reupload it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've been discussing the image as it stands at Flickr, where it originates from. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean that if file name and description were "Buildings in Dakar" it would be OK to keep under de minimis? We can reupload it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Per COM:DM, the intent is of the key importance in deciding whether a work is de minimis or not: "If the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." The prime difference between this image and the Louvre image is that whereas the Louvre image was taken primarily to depict the square and not the pyramid, this one has been taken to depict the monument. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- In File:African Renaissance Monument (5502494604).jpg the intention might have been to take a photo of the monument, but the result is a photo of the city with the monument - probably a camera in a kite is difficult to point accurately. I don't see this image different from photos of the Louvre with its de minimis copyrighted pyramid.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If you cropped out the truck in the first image, you would have a better photograph. If you cropped out the monument, you would have a picutre of a Maersk container at an angle -- not very useful. THe same argument can applied to the two or three images that include significant parts of the city -- the monument is still the center of interest. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:African Renaissance Monument 2
[edit]This statue was designed by architect Pierre Goudiaby and completed in 2010. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Sadly, Senegal has no Commons-acceptable FoP. Accordingly, reproductions of Senegalese architecture and sculptures by means of images are only permitted on noncommercial basis, conflicting with Commons:Licensing which states that all files must be freely usable by anyone in the world.
- File:20130503-IMG 2235 (8744109863).jpg
- File:20130503-IMG 2243 (8745327878).jpg
- File:Le Monument de la Renaissance africaine.jpg
- File:Monument de la Renaissance africaine (cropped).JPG
- File:Monument de la renaissance africaine 1.JPG
- File:Monument de la renaissance africaine 3.JPG
- File:Monument de la Renaissance africaine, Dakar, Senegal.jpg
- File:Monument de la Renaissance africaine.JPG
- File:Senegal-La renaissance.jpg
- File:SN-dakar-renaiss-monum-01.jpg
- File:SN-dakar-renaiss-monum-2.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:African Renaissance Monument 3
[edit]This monument has been designed by the Senegalese Pierre Goudiaby Atepa (b. 1947) who is still alive. As there is no Freedom of Panorama in Senegal, the pictures depicting this building have to be removed from Commons.
- File:African Renaissance Monument (5503209541).jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument - 2009 - panoramio.jpg
- File:African Renaissance Monument.jpg
- File:Le mobile nous suit partout.jpg
- File:Le Monument de la Renaissance africaine (49333168042).jpg
- File:Monument de la renaissance africaine 2.JPG
- File:Promenade Monument de la Renaissance.jpg
- File:StatueDakarInsideFace.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are two files mentioned in the previous DRs above File:African Renaissance Monument (5502494604).jpg and File:Obvious (5874610448).jpg, to which I'm not sure if they are restored or kept, or directly re-uploaded, should both be re-nominated? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Both of them have been deleted on 26 November 2013 after the first DR concerning this building and have been re-uploaded on 16 May 2021. I think they should be added to this present DR. Pymouss Let’s talk - 21:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:African Renaissance Monument 4
[edit]There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Senegal, and these commercially-licensed images that show the 3D artwork as main subject violate the copyright of the artwork's living artist, sculptor w:fr:Pierre Goudiaby Atepa (1947–). Needs COM:VRTS permission for commercial Creative Commons license from the sculptor himself.
- File:African Renaissance Monument (5503209541).jpg - reuploaded 2x (see prior nominations at nos. 1 and 3). Must be eligible for SPEEDY this time per COM:SPEEDY#G4. — JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)
- File:African Renaissance Monument - From Above (5557101948).jpg - reuploaded (see prior nomination at no. 3) — JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- File:Balade à la statue de renaissance de Sénégal.jpg - could be dismissed as complying Senegalese de minimis (work is not the main subject), but if this is cropped, will become an unused personal image; take note that this is the only upload of Bahdonelmi (talk · contribs), and the monument's inclusion is the only way for this file to meet Commons' COM:SCOPE.
- File:Monument der afrikanischen Renaissance hinter einem Baobab.jpg
- File:Monument der afrikanischen Renaissance.jpg
- File:Renaissance Monument.jpg
- File:The African Renaissance Monument .jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The part of the French/Senegalese law says "It is prohibited EXCEPT when the image is the center of the subject". Which it is. Key word: 'sauf". You folks are 180, i.e. not 100. Get a French speaker when in doubt. But doubt is the last thing I notice on this platform monitored and administrated by a very special type of people. Put that image back on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:983:3772:1:ed2c:160d:a6ad:d136 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC+8)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio: (c) Wenhua College. No permissions found 十六夜砕月 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The calligraphy works "文華學院" are copyrighted. COM:TOO China Larryasou (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. SCP-2000 09:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by HickoryOughtShirt?4 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Same photo that has been uploaded by Editor Pictured and deleted for copyright violations. I disagree as I found this photo on mattgray.book's Instagram, whose username matches the editor's username. The photo on Instagram's upload date matches the description, saying that it was taken around July 2019 in Korea. The photo uploaded is of high quality, indicating that it couldn't have been a re-upload of a photo from Instagram, and has matching EXIF data, which would suggest that the uploader is indeed the photographer or at the very least had access to the original file. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- To be explicitly clear, I'm voting Keep — BriefEdits (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I have just accepted permission for “File:Arden_cho01.jpg” under ticket:2020111510000145. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- This image has been approved and verified for Wikipedia / Wikimedia use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardencho (talk • contribs)
Kept: OTRS available. Minoraxtalk 11:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Opening regular deletion discussion. Originally speedy deleted as a non-free logo above threshold of originality (F1). This has been challenged at COM:UDR. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I was supportive of restoration on a TOO basis, but I now realise I failed to consider scope. This is apparently a small prison ministry in Wisconsin with no discernable notability. Indeed, the article for which the image was created was turned into a redirect to w:Religion in United States prisons 10 months ago. There is no evidence or indication the organisation is of any genuine renown or interest. Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's in use, so it is in scope. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Simple text logo. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep See en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 November 19#File:SaintDismas.png for more details, but I converted this file from non-free to PD-logo a few years back because it seem to be too simple per c:COM:TOO United States. I also tagged the file with en:WP:MTC since there's no need to keep it as a local version on English Wikipedia if it's not non-free. I'll admit that might've been a bit of a bold move on my part, but it was a good faith one. The file's licensing change wasn't challenged until after it was moved to Commons earlier this month. A Commons admin named Magog the Ogre came across the file, felt it violated COM:F1 and deleted it. After the file had been moved to Commons, there were basically two files: the local Wikipedia file and the Commons file. The local file was shadowing the Commons file and had been tagged for review per en:WP:F8. Magog the Ogre is also a Wikipedia administrator and he changed the licensing of the local file back to non-free after deleting the Commons one; this, however, means that the file's use on Wikipedia is now subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and those uses are currently being discussed. So, the reason the Commons file isn't being used anywhere is because it's still being shadowed by en:File:SaintDismas.png. If the file is OK as {{PD-textlogo}}, then there will be no need for a local Wikipedia file and it can be deleted; this will end the shadowing and Commons will show the file being used everywhere the local file is being used. When I converted the local file to "PD-logo", it was because I believed the sun imagery was too simple for copyright protection for the same reason as given at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-11#File:SaintDismas.png by elcobbola; I still think that's the case. If others agree and the file is kept, then that might also take care of the SCOPE issues because the file could continue to be used on English Wikipedia since it would no longer be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. At that point it becomes a matter of Wikipedia editorial consensus as to whether there's encyclopedic value in using the file in any articles and I don't think that's something that Commons really should try to decide. On the other hand, if others don't agree about the file being PD simply from a TOO standpoint, then the Commons file should be re-deleted; however, that would mean the local file would need to remain as non-free and therefore be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing here really convinces me that this logo is in scope. It's not in use, the organization is non-notable, and I don't see anything educational here. Heck, even the lines in the logo are out of wack. Missvain (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Its not out of scope. The english wiki file File:SaintDismas.png is in use (which will be deleted if we decide to keep this image). --Sreejith K (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Update: The local English Wikipedia file has been deleted as a violation of en:WP:NFCC; this resolved the shadowing problem that was affecting the Commons file. The Commons file is now being used everywhere the local file was being used; in other words, it's no longer "not in use". Whether the file should be kept per TOO is another matter that I think isn't related to SCOPE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: while the black circle, crosses and text are not in question, the sun illustration requires creative input to make and for that reason alone, in my opinion, the image is no free. Ww2censor (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept. Today, the image is in use on two articles: w:en:Catholic Church in the United States and w:en:Religion in United States prisons. The image therefore is considered in scope. I als consider the image a simple text logo and in PD. The orange circle with gradient color does not show enough creativity. Such circle gradients exist in other logo's, such as File:Fava333.png and many free images on the web. Elly (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
The text depicted here is authored in 1994 (the 6th year of the Heisei era). Not in PD. Yasu (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is a simple sentence that explains the time series, and there is no copyright in the sentence situation.--218.42.62.21 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Elly (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.
This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Derived from Working Drawings, which are marked Crown Copyright, but are NOT outright marked as OGL. 2 files appear to be marked as self in error... In a comment about a mass upload of the S series working drawings, User:Fæ expressed concern that the Crown Copyright notice in the working drawings from which these files derived means that the OGL status is not explicitly indicated or clear, and thus it is my view that it's time to start a DR to finally resolve this ambiguity, ideally with an explicit OTRS from the relevant agency responsible for them.
- File:Uk roadsign ferry.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S10.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S11.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S12.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S13.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S14.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S15 (1).svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S15 (2).svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S16.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S17.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S18.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S19 (1).svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S19 (2).svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S2.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S3.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S4.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S5.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S6.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S67.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S7.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S8.svg
- File:UK traffic sign symbol S9.svg
- File:Uk tram icon white.png
- File:Uk tram icon.png
- File:UK-Motorway-icon.svg
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think I got as far as considering a copyrighted cow and a copyrighted sheep, and lost the will to live.
- "You must do what you think is right." - Obi-Wan Kenobi.
- Cnbrb (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
kept, same motivation as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Working Drawings for Traffic Signs in the United Kingdom, although these files are derivative works, which is permitted on the OGL licence. Elly (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.
This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
In a comment about a mass upload of the S series working drawings, User:Fæ's expressed concern that the Crown Copyright notice in the working drawings from which certain Traffic Signs related images on Commons derive means that the OGL status is not explicitly indicated or clear, and thus it is my view that it's time to start a DR to finally resolve this ambiguity, ideally with someone senior from within Commons getting an explicit OTRS confirmation from the relevant agency responsible for them.
2 of the files here are dervied from working drawings:
2 of the file seem to be organizational Logo's which would not necessarily be covered by OGL anyway.
- File:UK Tourist Sign T301.1 - VisitScotland tourist attraction.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T401 - Welsh tourist attraction.svg
The rest seem to be sourced from the traffic-signs image databse. Does Commons have an explicit OTRS for these?
- File:UK Tourist Sign T1 - Information.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T101 - National Trust property.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T112 - English or Welsh country park.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T113 - English or Welsh bird garden.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T114 - Pleasure or Theme Park.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T115 - English or Welsh nature reserve.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T118 - English or Welsh beach.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T119 - English or Welsh farm park.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T127 - English or Welsh Roman ruins site.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T134 - English or Welsh golf course.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T135 - English or Welsh horceracing course.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T136 - English or Welsh motorsports.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T137 - English or Welsh cricket ground.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T138 - English or Welsh football ground.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T140 - English or Welsh fishing.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T142 - English or Welsh bicyle hire.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T148 - English or Welsh ski resort.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T149 - English or Welsh 10-pin bowling.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T153 - English or Welsh safari park.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T2 - English Tourist Attraction.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T201 - English tourist attraction rose.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T202 - English Heritage property.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T203 - English museum or art gallery.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T204 - English leisure centre.svg
- File:UK Tourist Sign T3 - House of historic or architectural importance.svg
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: If I looked correctly, File:UK Tourist Sign T1 - Information.svg does only have a lowercase letter "i"? Even though the British TOO is fairly very low, this may even be {{PD-ineligible}} possible? Sorry If I incorrectly read that TOO section. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:UK Tourist Sign T134 - English or Welsh golf course.svg may be ditto. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
kept, per discussion and same arguments as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Working Drawings for Traffic Signs in the United Kingdom. Elly (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)