Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/12/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I uploaded this image (very beautiful photo of Van Ark) and feel it would qualify for public domain usage; however, after getting a notification about it possibly not meeting the requirements, I don't have the time or energy to prove the case and have simply removed it from the associated web page. AlanE119 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely copyvio, speedied per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded this image of Charlene (not a professional photo) and feel it would qualify for public domain usage; however, after getting a notification about it possibly not meeting the requirements, I don't have the time or energy to prove the case and have simply removed it from the associated web page. AlanE119 (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely copyvio, speedied per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Taynguyenjk (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied per g/. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Porque sí Borrosa Nativo Perú (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- ??? What is the reason for deletion? --Oltau (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request by an Android user who could not resist. --Achim (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Bildrechte nicht beachtet Corsin Christen (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as obvious copyvio and uploader's request per OTRS Ticket#2020120810013787 (G7). JGHowes talk 23:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eissink as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source not found, but probably copyrighted work not by uploader Hanooz 23:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Hanooz: a second version of the same image, uploaded by the same user, was deleted. If I remember correctly, I had tagged a couple more uploads by that user, which have been deleted too. There is no indication, whatsoever, that the uploader has the copyright. Therefor I think this deletion request takes too much time and too much energy: wouldn't it be better to tag it "Missing permission"? It would leave the uploader enough time to respond, and it would also speed up the proces. Greeting, Eissink (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC).
- By the way, Hanooz, I just found an image from what definitely appears to be the same series here, which says FOTO: MITAR MITROVIĆ / RAS SRBIJA, a name which doesn't really resemble Alkapone10. I strongly suggest you delete the picture right away after all. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC).
@Hanooz: Dear, I have got all permission by the person. Miss Dragana Kosjerina is the owner of image, author and the only one person with permission for her images. She is my friend and she would like to format her Wiki page and because of that, all images is absolutely clear for fair usage. User: Eissink wrote in report that person in descripiton "Mitar Mitrović / RAS Srbija" but this is wrong. He is a person who create the sourse for press release. So, if you need I can send you the full statement by Dragana Kosjerina and press release that only she has the permission on this image. If you need additional information, please let me know. Regards. Alkapone10 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Alkapone10: Fair use is not allowed on commons. The copyright holder(s) must send their permission to Wikimedia. Please read Commons:OTRS and ask them to contact permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Hanooz 01:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bjornvermeerch (talk · contribs)
[edit]All taken from the web. A bunch from here - http://www.anderlechtshirts.com/Cards/Cards%201987.html - others are clearly old photos. None have meaningful exif - PCP as these are not own work
- File:Kenneth bryle RSCA.jpg
- File:Hendrik Andersen RSCA.jpg
- File:Alin Stoica RSCA.jpg
- File:Enzo foto album perso.jpg
- File:Enzo Scifo RSCA bis.jpg
- File:Philippe Albert RSCA mauve.jpg
- File:John Bosman rsca.jpg
- File:Marc Degryse RSC Anderlecht.jpg
- File:Coucke Marc.jpg
- File:Mister Verschueren Michel.jpg
- File:Mister Michel 1984.jpg
- File:Michel Verschueren.jpg
- File:Gouden duo.jpg
- File:Constant Vanden Stock.jpg
- File:Jef mermans.jpg
- File:Enzo Scifo jong.jpg
- File:JAN MULDER RSCA.jpg
- File:Laurent Verbiest.jpg
- File:Youri Tielemans pic.jpg
- File:Romelu Lukaku rsca.jpg
- File:Ahmed Hassan & Mbark Boussoufa.jpg
- File:Radzinski & Koller.jpg
- File:Paul Van Himst met de gewonnen UEFA beker.jpg
- File:Luc Nilis alias 'Lucky Luc'.jpg
- File:Robbie Rensenbrink alias slangenmens.jpg
- File:Rsca prentkaart Luc Nilis.jpg
- File:Lozano Juan RSCA.jpg
- File:Juan Lozano 'El Matador'.jpg
- File:CVdstck&DiegoMaradona 75 jaar RSCA.jpg
- File:We are RSCA (2).jpg
- File:De President & General Manager in gesprek.jpg
- File:RSCA- Gtruitje.jpg
- File:Sfeerbeeld RSCA CVDS.jpg
- File:We are RSCA.jpg
- File:Sfeerbeeld CVDS-1.jpg
- File:RSCA truitje jaren 70.jpg
- File:Vak achter doel Constant Vanden Stock stadion.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
F6. Lavado de licencia. P Cesar Maldonado | Tapuykuna? Quellqayǃ 12:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
F1. Aparente violación de derechos de autor P Cesar Maldonado | Tapuykuna? Quellqayǃ 13:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: ficticious logo. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
F6. Lavado de licencia. P Cesar Maldonado | Tapuykuna? Quellqayǃ 13:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Información erronea y sin sustento en la parte de derechos de autor. Posible violación de derechos de autor. P Cesar Maldonado | Tapuykuna? Quellqayǃ 20:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Has been deleted before. The uploader has been edit warring with AntiCompositeBot on File:Víctor Bustos Sola.jpg because no license was provided and engaging in aggressive self-promotion and spam. See also abuse filter log. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 01:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to add a license Bob3Studios (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 06:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small low-res image with signature at bottom left that doesn't match uploader. P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Harsha.vardhan909 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own works: inconsistent mix and quality, very low-res screengrabs.
- File:Language.bhasha.png
- File:Kayoramandalam.png
- File:Kayyata.jpg
- File:Radha Enters the Bower of Govinda.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by আবুবকর আলী আশরাফ (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable text-image of Person's name. Out of project scope.
- File:আবু মাসুদ আল-আনসারী.png
- File:ওমর ইবনে হাসান ইবনে আলী.png
- File:আব্দুল্লাহ ইবনে মুসলিম.png
- File:ওরাকা ইবনে নওফাল.png
- File:ইমাম আবূ হানীফা.png
- File:বুরহান উদ্দীন আল-মারগিনানী.png
- File:হারিস ইবনে সাবিত.png
- File:রাফে ইবনে খাদিজ.png
- File:যায়েদ ইবনে আরকাম(রা.).png
- File:مولانا حمايت الدين.png
- File:আল্লামা সা’দ উদ্দীন তাফতাযানী.png
- File:খতিব বাগদাদী.png
- File:রাগিব ইস্পাহানি(রহ.).png
- File:রাগিব ইস্পাহানি.png
- File:যয়নব বিনতে আবি সালামা.png
- File:Maolana Mahmudul Hasan.png
~Moheen (keep talking) 06:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by আবুবকর আলী আশরাফ (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own work, one of the two has a transmission code suggesting original source was Facebook.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 18:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ilovekkmghr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Italy. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Buddhika Jayanath (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as w:en:Help:Table to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RobotPartyYT (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, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a TV screenshot Ytoyoda (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a screenshot Ytoyoda (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Low resolution and user's history make it likely that this is from social media, not an original work Ytoyoda (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:12, 15 December 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) 16:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Marcel Catelein
[edit]Marcel Catelein died in 1979. Copyright violation.
- File:Bord de Seine sous pont.jpg
- File:Bouquet jaune.jpg
- File:Copie Charges des Cuirassiers de A.Morot (1942).jpg
- File:Femme à la libellule.jpg
- File:Marine 3.jpg
- File:Marine Catelein.jpg
- File:Notre-Dame en gris.jpg
Chassipress (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Marcel Catelein
[edit]Marcel Catelein died in 1979. Copyright violation.
- File:Anémones par Marcel Catelein.jpg
- File:Copie de tableau par Marcel Catelein.jpg
- File:Le Picador. Huile sur toile par Marcel Catelein.jpg
- File:Nu. huile sur toile par Marcel Catelein.jpg
- File:Pommiers en fleurs par Marcel Catelein.jpg
- File:Port de Douarnenez. Marine complexe par Marcel Catelein.jpg
- File:Villefranche sur Mer par Marcel Catelein.jpg
Chassipress (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:08, 15 December 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) 16:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:08, 15 December 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) 16:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 15 December 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) 16:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 15 December 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) 16:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 15 December 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) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Taken from Facebook per MD. E4024 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- "per MD"? You asked a Doctor?
- This is yet another of your bogus deletion requests with completely invalid rationales. You think you are "cleaning up", but all you're actually doing is wasting the time of other editors.
- Yes, this has probably travelled through Facebook. We don't care, that's not a valid reason for deletion. We might care (just as for Flickr et al) if it was someone else's IP being washed thorugh Facebook, but that's another question. Given the name and subject, this is most likely a user selfie.
- You could have nominated this as, "personal selfie, out of scope". We could discuss that, it might be a good reason to delete (although we do always allow some leeway on selfies of editors). But continually nominating under irrelevant and often simply untrue rationales is a time sink for other editors. Writing DRs so badly is its own problem too - if you want to nominate something, it's incumbent upon you to communicate why to other editors, not use some arcane "per MD" code that you've invented. If you don't have time to write a nomination correctly, we certainly don't have time to read it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - feel free to nominate for another reason. --Missvain (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, the uploader's only contribution. Depicted Yusuf Yasin Kaya is not mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in tr.wiki. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as w:en:Help:Table to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aungthurawinit (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Twice's Kim Dahyun at MAMA 2020.jpg
- File:Nayeon Performing "Yes or Yes".jpg
- File:Momo Performing Yes or yes 2019.jpg
- File:Twice Sana Fancy 2019.jpg
- File:Mina KBS Music Bank 2019.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Looking at the uploader's images I wager that all of his uploads are plain copyright violations and should be speedy deleted! --D-Kuru (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Polvillito (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:IMG-20201206-WA0018.jpg
- File:IMG-20201206-WA0016.jpg
- File:IMG-20201206-WA0015.jpg
- File:IMG-20201206-WA0009.jpg
- File:IMG-20201206-WA0008.jpg
- File:IMG-20201206-WA0007.jpg
- File:IMG-20201206-WA0026.jpg
- File:IMG-20201206-WA0025.jpg
- File:REZATAHMASBI-RAHYABMELEL.jpg
- File:IMG-20201206-WA0022.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work, one was sent via whatsapp. PCP
Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JYOTIRMOY2018 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
Didym (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Picture is obviously from printed (halftoned) source. Not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a professional portrait not own work Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Series of derivative works of portraits of people all claimed to be own work, but all, from sizes, quality, context, appearance, not own work. Some appear to be photocopies of published works, others are so small that they cannot possibly be the originals.
- File:Yves Le Febvre.jpg
- File:Youenn Olier.jpg
- File:Youenn Drezen.jpg
- File:Yann-Ber Piriou.jpg
- File:Yann Poupinot.jpg
- File:Yann Brekilien.jpg
- File:Visant Seité.jpg
- File:Tanguy Louarn.jpg
- File:Raffig Tullou.jpg
- File:Ronan Larvor.jpg
- File:Pierre-Yves Le Rhun.jpg
- File:Pierre Trépos.png
- File:Per-Vari Kerloc'h.jpg
- File:Pêr Denez.jpg
- File:Michel Phlipponneau.png
- File:Maurice Marchais.jpg
- File:Maodez Glanndour.jpg
- File:Lucien Fruchaud.jpg
- File:Malo Louarn.jpg
- File:Lionel Radiguet.jpg
- File:Leopold Kohr.jpg
- File:Léon Le Berre.jpg
- File:Léon Fleuriot.png
- File:Kristian Hamon.jpg
- File:Joseph Lec'hvien.jpg
- File:Joseph Le Bayon.jpg
- File:Job an Irien.jpg
- File:Jean-Pierre Le Dantec.jpg
- File:Jean-Marie de Penguern.png
- File:Jean-Jacques Monnier.jpg
- File:Guingouin 1913-2005.jpg
- File:Georges Pinault.jpg
- File:Georges Cochevelou.jpg
- File:Georges Cadiou.jpg
- File:François-Mathurin Gourvès.jpg
- File:Françoise Morvan.jpg
- File:Francis Favereau.jpg
- File:François Vallée2.jpg
- File:Fañch Morvannou.jpg
- File:Fañch Broudic.jpg
- File:Erwan Vallerie.jpg
- File:Bertrand Frélaut.jpg
- File:Charles Coquebert de Montbret.jpg
- File:Bernard Tanguy2.jpg
- File:Auguste du Marhallac'h.jpg
- File:Armans Ar C'halvez.jpg
- File:Alan Heusaff.jpg
- File:Annaig Renault.jpg
- File:Armand Keravel.jpg
- File:Pierre Mocaër.jpg
- File:Padrig Montauzier.jpg
- File:Maurice Duhamel.jpg
- File:Michel Nicolas.jpg
- File:Marie Drouart (1887-1966).jpg
- File:Louis Tiercelin.jpg
- File:Louis Napoléon Le Roux.jpg
- File:Jeanne-Marie Barbey.jpg
- File:Jean Le Fustec 1900.jpg
- File:Barbey 1876-1960 Sortie de messe à Gourin.jpg
- File:Camille Le Mercier d'Erm.jpg
- File:Jean Choleau (1879-1965).jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deleted some as copyvios. Some of the remaining might be PD. — Racconish 💬 07:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, I deleted all of the remaining files, as most of them had no credible source to even begin to establish a copyright status. --Polarlys (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pZgIdAgrhI is non free per youtube data. And non free sound found in the video. Eatcha (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Nem szeretnem ha tovabba a wikipedian megtalalhato lenne ez a kep ebben a formaban Ivonole (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
This is my own work. I don't want to be on any platforms that are not mine. Many people tried to sell this pictures even if this picture is currently free to use. This is my picture and I want to delete from Wikimedia Ivonole (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep in use at w:hu:King Long. Useful picture of this type of bus and the bus company. Valid licenses cannot be withdrawn. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Polarlys (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This photo is my own photo. I don't want to be on any platforms that are not mine. This picture is under my copyright! Ivonole (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ivonole: After you choose to publish in the public domain, you will not be able to change its license status. -akko (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I just want to delete it. I don't want to change any license status, just delete it please. Ivonole (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Polarlys (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ivonole as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This photo is my own photo. I don't want to be on WikiMedia Commons. This picture is under my copyright!
Converted to regular DR, as image does not qualify for speedy deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Polarlys (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
It is my photo. I took it and I don't want this photo on Wikimedia commons. This photo is my personal data and according to GDPR I have the right to request to delete my personal data. I just want to be deleted this photo. When I uploaded this photo, nothing asked me that I want this photo to be public. I don't want to be public this photo! Please delete it as soon as possible! Thank you! Ivonole (talk 03:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous listings. The author/uploader specifically released it under a free license, 2 years before first requesting it for deletion, far too long for a courtesy deletion. Seems a useful in-scope photo. No reason changed from earlier "keep" rulings. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
It is my photo. I took it and I don't want this photo on Wikimedia commons. This photo is my personal data and according to GDPR I have the right to request to delete my personal data. I just want to be deleted this photo. When I uploaded this photo, nothing asked me that I want this photo to be public. I don't want to be public this photo! Please delete it as soon as possible! Thank you! Ivonole (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Speedy kept per previous. Repeatedly relisting a photo quickly after a deletion request was closed with no new reason for deletion specified is inappropriate. Don't do that. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
It is my photo. I took it and I don't want this photo on Wikimedia commons. This photo is my personal data and according to GDPR I have the right to request to delete my personal data and I am requsting to delete this data! I just want to be deleted this photo. When I uploaded this photo, nothing asked me that I want this photo to be public. I don't want to be public this photo! Please delete it as soon as possible! Thank you Ivonole (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep You specifically released this photo into the public domain in January 2018. I see no "personal data" on the photo. I think your repeatedly relisting this shortly after it has been closed as kept is inappropriate getting to be abusive. As I've closed this same request multiple times already, I'll let some other admin weigh in here. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete When I uploaded this photo I did not wanted to release this photo as public domain. Nothing warned me that picture will be public. NOTHING. In the beginning this year I found this image was public and I don't want that. Also in Hungary license plates are personal data. You cannot post license plates to public because you will violate privacy laws. So please delete it. I do not want to get into trouble. Thanks Ivonole (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment 1) You've already listed it asking for deletion; adding a vote to your comment is superfluous. 2)I don't understand how you can say "Nothing warned me that picture will be public". What did you think you were doing when you uploaded the photo to Wikimedia and selected a public domain license for your photo? 3)The only readable license plate in the image is on the bus. That could be blurred - would that make you feel better? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)- When I uploaded this photo i did not know how Wikipedia is works, just uploaded a photo. Wikipedia did not asked me if I wanted any copyright or anything. I do not want to be blurred, I want it to be deleted. Only one page using this photo. Why is it so hard to delete? Ivonole (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
It is my photo. I took it and I don't want this photo on Wikimedia commons. This photo is my personal data and according to GDPR I have the right to request to delete my personal data and I am requsting to delete this data! I just want to be deleted this photo. When I uploaded this photo, nothing asked me that I want this photo to be public. I don't want to be public this photo! Please delete it as soon as possible! Thank you Ivonole (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: as before: no valid reason for deletion. --Polarlys (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
It is my photo. I took it and I don't want this photo on Wikimedia commons. This photo is my personal data and according to GDPR I have the right to request to delete my personal data and I am requsting to delete this data! I just want to be deleted this photo. When I uploaded this photo, nothing asked me that I want this photo to be public. I don't want to be public this photo! Please delete it as soon as possible! Thank you Ivonole (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Ivonole: Repeatedly raising deletion requests without giving new reasons for deletion is disruptive and is very unlikely to lead to the file being deleted. The Wikimedia Foundation terms of use says (section 7e):
- No revocation of license: Except as consistent with your license, you agree that you will not unilaterally revoke or seek invalidation of any license that you have granted under these Terms of Use for text content or non-text media contributed to the Wikimedia Projects or features, even if you terminate use of our services.
- If you believe that you have a legal right to require the removal of this file then you could contact the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Speedy kept. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused user graphic, uploader has only one other live global contribution, which was reverted. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 07:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 17:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Claimed as own work but clearly old photos, needs more info to determine PD status
- File:Reinhardt Jr..jpg
- File:Reinhardt Sr..jpg
- File:Dallas Elda Voelkel.jpg
- File:Reading Elda Voelkel.jpg
- File:Toddler Elda Voelkel.jpg
- File:Infant Elda Voelkel.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes my family owns these original photos. They are not digital copies downloaded from somewhere. However the Reinhardt Jr. photo does appear on the Internet. Is it better to link that photo to his Wikipedia biography?
Reinhardt Sr. - A photo we own.
Dallas Elda Voelkel - Taken by a Dallas studio. I inherited this photo from her grandparents who are my great great grandparents.
I am assuming the above note is is from 325Sidney as it is unsigned. I think, if I may say, from your comments, 325Sidney you misunderstand copyright law. It makes no difference who owns original photographic prints, the copyright remains with the photographer ("Author" or "Creator") unless it is specifically assigned by contract to someone else. The only option you have to keep these these photos on Wikimedia is to prove they are in the Public Domain. If the photographs were published before 1925 then it would reasonably simple to pronounce them all as in the Public Domain. But you imply that they have been stored, unpublished by the family until put on Wikimedia. In this case, and I quote from COM:United States, "Works created before 1978 and first published after or in 1978 are protected for the earlier of 95 years from publication or registration for copyright or 120 years from creation (for anonymous or corporate works) or 70 years after death of the creator for known authors" So we need to know the creation date or the date of the death of the photographer. Some of your photos have a creation date - none I recall are before 1900 so unless we can find out the photographer(s) and prove she/he died over 70 years ago, reluctantly, I have to agree that they should be deleted. Delete. --Headlock0225 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Old photos claimed as own work, not the first time the uploader has done this. Could be PD as schulman died in 1937 but we need more info about photographer, year etc
- File:Schuhmann Band of Waldeck, Texas.jpg
- File:Emil Schuhmann of Waldeck, Texas.jpg
- File:Meiss Grist Mill in Victoria County, Texas.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I personally own the photos "Emil Schuhmann of Waldeck, Texas" and "Schuhmann Band of Waldeck." They are not digital downloads although copies of these photos are on the Internet. -325Sidney
Deletesee my notes above--Headlock0225 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Herr Fritz wird sich ja wohl kaum selbst fotografiert haben. Dieses Foto ist eines von genau zweien, die der Kollege hochgeladen hat. Beide sind von öffentlichen Webseiten stibitzt. Bitte mal die Freigabe prüfen. Ich sehe keine. Graf Foto (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no permission. --Polarlys (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Dieses Foto ist eines von genau zweien, die der Kollege hochgeladen hat. Beide sind von öffentlichen Webseiten stibitzt. Bitte mal die Freigabe prüfen. Ich sehe keine. Graf Foto (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no permission. --Polarlys (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Its not CC0 at Flickr --ToprakM ✉ 00:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep As the uploader. And so what that is not now under a CC0 license? This license is not revocable, we have a bot called FlickreviewR 2 that does a thing called license review, where this file is, i.e. this file at the time of the upload had the CC0 license, as can be clearly be seen on the filepage. Tm (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It was evidently licensed under CC0 at the time of upload to Commons, and that it irrevocable. So the current licensing is irrelevant. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep CC license is irrevokable. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Wdwd (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted drawing A1Cafel (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Though I have no doubts this picture is taken by the uploader, the photo contains a non-free, copyrighted part, which is the advertisement screen. I don't think de minimis can apply here, as the advertisement is literally the subject of the photo. pandakekok9 02:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is this situated in South Korea? If so, then Delete because there's also no freedom of panorama in SoKor. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- JWilz12345, this is in New York City, not in South Korea. The ad language is just in Korean language. Delete per Pandakekok9. Eti15TrSf (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for correction @Eti15Trsf: . But anyway, this is still an ad, it is not covered by COM:FOP US which only covers architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- JWilz12345, this is in New York City, not in South Korea. The ad language is just in Korean language.
- Delete as a copyright violation. The entire reason for the photo is to have the advert in it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Question @Rgalo10: one question? What is "MTA"? The "MTA" logo appears on the bottom right of the ad. Do you know what it is? Thanks! Mateussf (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mateussf, MTA is the transit agency serving New York City. The photo was taken inside a subway train. Eti15TrSf (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork without permission. --Wdwd (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
File description page blanked by original uploader; CC-BY-SA-4.0/own work unlikely; out of scope as unused logo AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
License template removed by Garuda28 (talk · contribs) with comment This is fan art, no relation with the official space force and certainly not made by a USSF employee as copyright protection implies. For reference, the current official seal is File:Seal of the United States Space Force.svg. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support this is fan art, with no relationship to the Space Force at all. If it can’t be deleted, it shouldn’t be categorized in such a misleading way to imply that it is a space force symbol. Garuda28 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The licence as governmental work is definitely false, the logo comes from here (yet as Space Corps) and is from "the Donald" also with questionable copyright. --Ras67 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
File description page blanked by original uploader; CC-BY-SA-4.0/own work unlikely; out of scope as unused logo AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} removed by original uploader without comment. Assuming to be a request for deletion. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
copyvio Non cc-by-sa image ChongDae (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Roof cut off, poor quality and identical content as file number 03 and 04 of the same name Anidaat (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Only used on the English Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted in July 2020 as spam. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 07:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal unused photo by non-contributor. --Wdwd (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A proposal! by "the Donald" so seeing as fan art, copyright questionable. Is Porter777 and "the Donald" the same person? Ras67 (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There is no value to this being kept and I've seen it all around the internet, so I'd second the copyright concerns. Garuda28 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kmukherjeek584 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely to be out of COM:SCOPE. In addition, the photo can be found here, so OTRS permission is needed as well.
Ahmadtalk 07:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
CV of http://www.flexpine.com/ Curbon7 (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
unused, doesn't seem to be in a scope, no category, description: "iiiii"... Pibwl (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
unused, doesn't seem to be in a scope, no category, description: "iiiii"... Pibwl (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope (not educationally useful). Hoary (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There may be copyright issues as well. I've tagged the image and put a note on the uploader's talk page. Davidwr (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Spam (was used on an advert on Wikispecies, now deleted) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Not own work, see EXIF data : Copyright©Peter Knutson Skivsamlare (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
unused banner, out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Il s'agit de mon portrait que je souhaite supprimer Ragal75 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Image was never used anyway, so probably out of project scope. --pandakekok9 01:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of User:JosieJosie
[edit]- File:Mike Scott Bio Shot Banjo-August 2019-A.jpg
- File:Mike Scott with Martin Guitar.jpg
- File:MikeScott-Richard Suter Photo Release1-28-20(002).jpg
Two files by a photographer, and a third file which is a photo release. Should go through Commons:OTRS by the photographer or person granted rights to the photos and have evidence of a free license. Addendum, the second file has some sort of OTRS link in it, so permission may have been sent for that one approximately 11 months ago but needs to be checked? I can't see a ticket # there. The third file at any rate is also out of scope as a file. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; please send OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
2.2.1: Not educationally useful; 2.3.1: Photos of Identifiable People Cjstepney (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep useful for me. A scene of Odaiba Marine Park, with several Pokémon Go players. While cannot be used on the articles on video game, it may be used to entries about the park. 🙂 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It shows clearly on people playing pokemon go (and the heat in 2016), obviously has educational use. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
2.2.1: Not educationally useful Cjstepney (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It shows clearly on people playing pokemon go (and the heat in 2016), obviously has educational use. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
2.2.1: Not educationally useful Cjstepney (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep seems useful for me though. A park scenery. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It shows clearly on people playing pokemon go (and the heat in 2016), obviously has educational use. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Author listed as Lappas, Takes, 1904-1995 , but publication date given as 1900 , Something doesn't make sense here ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The publication date is wrong. In the WorldCat notice, it's given as [19--] which means "unknown year in the 20th century", probably the Internet Archive where this copy was taken from derived a generic "1900" from that. The life dates of the author seem to be correct, see Library of Congress Authority File. The book was published in Greece (Athenai, which is Athens), so it is still protected in its country of origin, as the author died in 1995. It is also rather unlikely that it was published before 1925; the record of the Bavarian State Library estimates "ca. 1965" as the date of publication. So not even {{PD-US-expired}} would be applicable; which is however irrelevant in this case, as it's a publication from Greece anyway. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Promotional content.
- File:Bryan Towey Entrepreneur in Switzerland.jpg
- File:Bryan Towey in Zurich, Switzerland.jpg
- File:Bryan Towey CEO of Bryan Towey Organization.jpg
- File:Bryan Towey - Entrepreneur and Philanthropist.jpg
- File:Bryan Towey Munich 1.jpg
- Bryan Towey
Achim (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by FitIndia. --Gbawden (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
unused JPEG version of File:1RHP Pucelle 001.svg — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
User with no valid contributions keeps using Commons as a webhost service. Gikü (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 11:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The uploader didn't knew/noticed that this image were already uploaded and updated in File:Visiting Vehicle Launches, Arrivals and Departures.png. Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This artwork is not in a public place (entrance fee required, see https://www.hortusharen.nl/en/practical-information/entry-fee-season-2019-2020/) so no FOP and artist is still alive (see https://www.jopsjacobs.com/biografie.html) -> violation of copyright JopkeB (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Goedenavond
[edit]Ik heb het
|
The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 18 of the Dutch copyright law, which states that “it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work, as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6°[1] or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°[2], which are made to be permanently located in a public place, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space. Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included”.
Note that photographs are not included in Item 6. They are separately listed at Item 9 and are therefore not covered by FOP. See COM:CRT/Netherlands#Freedom of panorama for more information.
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Infosys_Limited_02.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![138 File:Artificial river in Metropolitan Park "Antonis Tritsis".png](#File:Artificial_river_in_Metropolitan_Park_"Antonis_Tritsis".png){kind=link}
![139 File:Railway station in the Metropolitan Park "Antonis Tritsis".png](#File:Railway_station_in_the_Metropolitan_Park_"Antonis_Tritsis".png){kind=link}
![140 File:Lake Korykia in Metropolitan Park "Antonis Tritsis".png](#File:Lake_Korykia_in_Metropolitan_Park_"Antonis_Tritsis".png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Infosys_Limited_02.jpg){kind=link}
_Infosys_Limited_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Infosys_Limited_02.jpg){kind=link}
_Infosys_Limited_02.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Groeten van --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can add this tag, but this makes it not right. See Copyright_rules_by_territory/Netherlands#Freedom_of_panorama for the conditions to place this tag. An important condition is that the artwork should be in a "public space". So it must be freely accessible by the general public. If an entrance fee is charged, then the place is not freely accessible by the general public, so it is not a public space, then FOP is not applicable and this tag should not be added. JopkeB (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Antwoord:
[edit]
Als de verkoopprijzen bij de objecten staan vermeld, neem ik aan, dat de kunstenaar blij is met onze kwaliteitsfoto's op Wikimedia (mits alle relevante gegevens er bij vermeld staan.) Zie de website van jopsjacobs over de prijzen van de grafieken: https://www.jopsjacobs.com/prijzen.html
Heeft jopsjacobs geklaagd over de foto's?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
See Deletion_requests/File:Hortus_Haren._Locatie_Chinese_tuin_Het_Verborgen_Rijk_van_Ming_01.jpg for my reply. JopkeB (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This artwork is not in a public place (entrance fee required, see https://www.hortusharen.nl/en/practical-information/entry-fee-season-2019-2020/) so no FOP and artist is still alive (see https://www.jopsjacobs.com/biografie.html) -> violation of copyright JopkeB (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Goedenavond
[edit]
Ik heb het
|
|
The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 18 of the Dutch copyright law, which states that “it is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work, as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 6°[1] or of an architectural work as meant in article 10, first paragraph, under 8°[2], which are made to be permanently located in a public place, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space. Where incorporation of a work in a compilation is concerned, not more than a few of the works of the same author may be included”.
Note that photographs are not included in Item 6. They are separately listed at Item 9 and are therefore not covered by FOP. See COM:CRT/Netherlands#Freedom of panorama for more information.
|
Groeten van --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can add this tag, but this makes it not right. See Copyright_rules_by_territory/Netherlands#Freedom_of_panorama for the conditions to place this tag. An important condition is that the artwork should be in a "public space". So it must be freely accessible by the general public. If an entrance fee is charged, then the place is not freely accessible by the general public, so it is not a public space, then FOP is not applicable and this tag should not be added. JopkeB (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Antwoord:
[edit]
Als de verkoopprijzen bij de objecten staan vermeld, neem ik aan, dat de kunstenaar blij is met onze kwaliteitsfoto's op Wikimedia (mits alle relevante gegevens er bij vermeld staan.) Zie de website van jopsjacobs over de prijzen van de grafieken: https://www.jopsjacobs.com/prijzen.html
Heeft jopsjacobs geklaagd over de foto's?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
So the artwork is for sale. Even worse:
- If this is not an artwork that is permanently displayed, then there is an extra reason why FOP does not apply here: one of the requirements is that the artwork should be permanently located in public places.
- Wikimedia Commons is not for advertising, see Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_a_place_to_advertise
- No, the artist did not complain, but that is not relevant, see Precautionary principle.
- If the artist agrees on publication of his art works on Wikimedia Commons, then ask him for a confirmation, see OTRS/nl and use the example.
JopkeB (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Natuurlijk maak ik geen foto's om reclame voor de kunstenaar te maken. Ik vond het een mooi object om te fotograferen en doe daar niemand mee te kort. Doe dus ook niets verkeerd op Wikimedia. Maar haal die foto's maar weg! Dit wordt een eindeloze discussie waar ik geen energie in wil steken, want u heeft allang uw standpunt bepaalt. Groeten uit het nuchtere Friesland, --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Non free picutre, taken from French professionnal handball league: https://www.lnh.fr/joueurs/nicolas-minne LeFnake (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted character. Certainly too recent to be considered public domain, and cannot be reused in post cards, T-shirt prints, and commercial vlogs without the artist's permission (violates Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I took this picture because SM City Baliuag Management granted me permission; this is a commercial advertisement amid the play world loosing business before the Pandemic; now it is still closed and despite several attempt there is utter delays in opening this even Quantum and Toms World here already opened; this is owned by SM Prime Holdings hence, the permission puts it outside the scope of the prohibitions Judgefloro (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Judgefloro: permission must come from the artist or designer and not from the owner who doesn't hold copyright on it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted poster / ad. Such objects are copyrightable (category "pictorial illustrations and advertisements") according to Ms. Emmelina Masanque of IPOPHL (in the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution or OADR, point 40:27 of the webinar). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and advertising, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative works of copyrighted packaging, from the packaging of M&M's choco sweets to the design art of the cans
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 07.jpg
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 08.jpg
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 20.jpg
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 21.jpg
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 22.jpg
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 23.jpg
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 25.jpg
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 32.jpg
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 33.jpg
- File:08903jfM&M's Mix & Match Exhibit Bulacanfvf 34.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because I took this picture because SM City Baliuag Management granted me permission; and I approached the Head or OIC supervisor to inquire about this Ads of theirs; they are promoting their products; Category:Exhibits in shopping malls; for example Exhibit in Moscow M&M's advertising M&M's-colored racing automobiles Candylicious Judgefloro (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC).
.jpg){kind=link}
- Permission must come from the copyright holder - most likely the people who created the design of the packaging - and not from the owner of the establishment who doesn't hold copyright on it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted poster / ad. Such objects are copyrightable (category "pictorial illustrations and advertisements") according to Ms. Emmelina Masanque of IPOPHL (in the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution or OADR, point 40:27 of the webinar). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because I took this picture because SM City Baliuag Management granted me permission; and I approached the Head or OIC supervisor to inquire about this Ads of theirs; they are promoting their products; Category:Exhibits in shopping malls; for example Exhibit in Moscow M&M's advertising M&M's-colored racing automobiles Candylicious
- May I add that the webinar is not an official stand of the Government or IPO but of a temporary officer; when IPO directors retire or are changed the new one has a new policy; so, my query to you have not been addressed; why noy email the IPO regarding all these, instead of DRs, so that once and for all, a Written Reply not a webinar will, for sure be a better yardstick for Commons to measure the yes and no of Deletion buttons; and a permission from the SM Management is a clear exception to the alleged copy vio as opined by the temporary officer of the Webinar opinion; I counter that only a written Reply and not Declining by the IPO will resolve all these issues; Judgefloro (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Judgefloro: Ms. Emmelina Masanque has a position at IPOPHL. She is the Assistant Division Chief of the Information Dissemination and Training Division of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau under IPOPHL. And FYI, that webinar was also joined by IPOPHL director general Mr. Rowel Barba, which means that every facts stated on that webinar are true interpretations of what the essence of the copyright law is. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted poster / ad. Such objects are copyrightable (category "pictorial illustrations and advertisements") according to Ms. Emmelina Masanque of IPOPHL (in the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution or OADR, point 40:27 of the webinar). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because I took this picture because SM City Baliuag Management granted me permission; and I approached the Head or OIC supervisor to inquire about this Ads of theirs; they are promoting their products; Category:Exhibits in shopping malls; for example Exhibit in Moscow M&M's advertising M&M's-colored racing automobiles Candylicious
- May I add that the webinar is not an official stand of the Government or IPO but of a temporary officer; when IPO directors retire or are changed the new one has a new policy; so, my query to you have not been addressed; why noy email the IPO regarding all these, instead of DRs, so that once and for all, a Written Reply not a webinar will, for sure be a better yardstick for Commons to measure the yes and no of Deletion buttons; and a permission from the SM Management is a clear exception to the alleged copy vio as opined by the temporary officer of the Webinar opinion; I counter that only a written Reply and not Declining by the IPO will resolve all these issues; Judgefloro (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Judgefloro: (mirrored reply) Ms. Emmelina Masanque has a position at IPOPHL. She is the Assistant Division Chief of the Information Dissemination and Training Division of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau under IPOPHL. And FYI, that webinar was also joined by IPOPHL director general Mr. Rowel Barba, which means that every facts stated on that webinar are true interpretations of what the essence of the copyright law is. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted poster / ad. Such objects are copyrightable (category "pictorial illustrations and advertisements") according to Ms. Emmelina Masanque of IPOPHL (in the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution or OADR, point 40:27 of the webinar). While it can be cropped, the image will focus instead on artworks (two life-sized M&M's), which will in turn become no FOP violation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because I took this picture because SM City Baliuag Management granted me permission; and I approached the Head or OIC supervisor to inquire about this Ads of theirs; they are promoting their products; Category:Exhibits in shopping malls; for example Exhibit in Moscow M&M's advertising M&M's-colored racing automobiles Candylicious
- May I add that the webinar is not an official stand of the Government or IPO but of a temporary officer; when IPO directors retire or are changed the new one has a new policy; so, my query to you have not been addressed; why noy email the IPO regarding all these, instead of DRs, so that once and for all, a Written Reply not a webinar will, for sure be a better yardstick for Commons to measure the yes and no of Deletion buttons; and a permission from the SM Management is a clear exception to the alleged copy vio as opined by the temporary officer of the Webinar opinion; I counter that only a written Reply and not Declining by the IPO will resolve all these issues; Judgefloro (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Judgefloro: (mirrored reply) Ms. Emmelina Masanque has a position at IPOPHL. She is the Assistant Division Chief of the Information Dissemination and Training Division of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau under IPOPHL. And FYI, that webinar was also joined by IPOPHL director general Mr. Rowel Barba, which means that every facts stated on that webinar are true interpretations of what the essence of the copyright law is. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Overall better quality image of the same object is available here Khruner (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and redirected to File:Stela Shebitqo Met.jpg to maintain incoming links. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
unused, doesn't seem to be in a scope, no category. Pibwl (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Contrary to uploader's claim, the depicted logo (obviously taken from an album cover) is not a simple textlogo, whereby the PD-claim is invalid. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
random bad photographs of Lego bricks, along with File:Zabawa Lego 41.JPG, File:Zabawa Lego 23.JPG, File:Zabawa Lego 24.JPG and in fact probably all in its category. Pibwl (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
unclear notability, doubful own work, unused, no category. The same for its copies File:DE PRISCO GERARDO.jpg, File:GERARDO DE PRISCO .jpg, File:Gerardo de prisco.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and DW, copyvio. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Useless too blurry photo. Solomon203 (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, somebody's random selfie Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private video hosting. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
unused autopromo book cover. Pibwl (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ytoyoda as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:Artificial river in Metropolitan Park Antonis Tritsis.jpg
Converted to regular DR just for formal reason due to Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
![07:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/08#c-Túrelio-2020-12-08T07:36:00.000Z-File:Artificial_river_in_Metropolitan_Park_"Antonis_Tritsis".png){kind=link}
- @Túrelio: Should I say No FOP in Greece? Ditto for this and this? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ähem, what has FoP to do with this dupe-DR? FoP is a copyright-exception. Copyright is irrelevant here. Per our policy/guidance, which I linked above, PNG->JPEG duplicate-deletions should not go the speedy way, but be discussed. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
![02:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/08#c-P199-2020-12-30T02:49:00.000Z-File:Artificial_river_in_Metropolitan_Park_"Antonis_Tritsis".png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Ytoyoda as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:Railway station in the Metropolitan Park Antonis Tritsis.jpg
Converted to regular DR just for formal reason due to Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
![07:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/08#c-Túrelio-2020-12-08T07:36:00.000Z-File:Railway_station_in_the_Metropolitan_Park_"Antonis_Tritsis".png){kind=link}
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
![02:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/08#c-P199-2020-12-30T02:51:00.000Z-File:Railway_station_in_the_Metropolitan_Park_"Antonis_Tritsis".png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Ytoyoda as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:Lake Korykia in Metropolitan Park Antonis Tritsis.jpg
Converted to regular DR just for formal reason due to Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
![07:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/08#c-Túrelio-2020-12-08T07:36:00.000Z-File:Lake_Korykia_in_Metropolitan_Park_"Antonis_Tritsis".png){kind=link}
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
![02:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/08#c-P199-2020-12-30T02:54:00.000Z-File:Lake_Korykia_in_Metropolitan_Park_"Antonis_Tritsis".png){kind=link}
Low size image without metadata. Unlikely to be own work. 176.59.46.127 08:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. TinEye found this online in 2017/18 - see here https://storybookcapitalofamerica.com/ Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- From 325Sidney, the user who uploaded it: I have the permission of the photographer Trish Dressen to use this parade photo in editorial content for the Children's Art & Literacy Festival. She took this photo while communications director at the Abilene Convention and Visitors Bureau and it has been used by both the ACVB and the Abilene Cultural Affairs Council, which produced the festival, many times over the years to represent the festival. Trish can be reached at tdressen@nccil.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 325Sidney (talk • contribs) 10:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs OTRS. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Image looks like a capture from video. So, some doubt about claimed ownership by uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Not clear why it is in a scope, rubbish description, no cat, along with its copies: File:Scaglia 422.jpg, File:Scaglia 42.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
unused bad photograph of a photograph, doesn't seem to be in a scope, no cat, along with its copies File:Arslan12.jpg, File:Arslan11.jpg, File:Arslan2.jpg, and in fact rest of uploads. Pibwl (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid we'll have to delete this photo because both the painting on the wall (which all the visitors are looking at) and the bust in the foreground are protected works of art. We cannot rely on the de minimis exception here because the painting is clearly visible (although distorted) and a main subject of the photograph, both with regard to its size within the photo and considering the subject of the photo. (The visibility of the painting is also the reason why the photo is used in the according Wikipedia articles.) Gnom (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- For what it’s worth, the image was used to show the crowds of viewers and is placed in both entries next to the discussion of that. I also inquired about de minimus before uploading. That discussion is here: commons:Help_desk#De_minimus_advice. I was persuaded by the idea that the works are low-quality to the point of not being reproducible (eg the enclosure cuts the sculpture in half) and like I say, that the main interest of image was of the crowd. Will ping Ruslik0 who was kind enough to look at this for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for mentioning the previous discussion, I wasn't aware of it. However, whether or not a protected work is depicted in 'low quality' is not an argument in determining whether the de minimis exception applies, neither is the question of whether or not the protected work in question is 'reproducible'. The question is whether the protected work can be left out without changing the overall impression created by the photo – and that is clearly not the case: The viewer of the photo is drawn to the focus of the visitors, which can be clearly identified as First Lady Michelle Obama. --Gnom (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. I mean I asked because I didn’t know; I read the advice at Commons:De minimis and it seemed most similar to the example described as “ Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (e.g. blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply.” and that is marked as “Maybe” as far as whether DM applies. In any event it definitely suggested the quality of the reproduction matter so now I am confused... Innisfree987 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks for explaining. We can't rely on this rationale here. --Gnom (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. I mean I asked because I didn’t know; I read the advice at Commons:De minimis and it seemed most similar to the example described as “ Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (e.g. blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply.” and that is marked as “Maybe” as far as whether DM applies. In any event it definitely suggested the quality of the reproduction matter so now I am confused... Innisfree987 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for mentioning the previous discussion, I wasn't aware of it. However, whether or not a protected work is depicted in 'low quality' is not an argument in determining whether the de minimis exception applies, neither is the question of whether or not the protected work in question is 'reproducible'. The question is whether the protected work can be left out without changing the overall impression created by the photo – and that is clearly not the case: The viewer of the photo is drawn to the focus of the visitors, which can be clearly identified as First Lady Michelle Obama. --Gnom (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: certainly DM. Blacking out or removing a copyrighted item from an image is only done to avoid reproduction, which is not a concern here: "insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity.". --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Original / higher res graphic : file:105.The Rebuilding of the Temple Is Begun.jpg Gunnar (💬) 13:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable tiny crop. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Per the metadata from Facebook, need to verify authorship and license. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
violation of copyright Twopower332.1938 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Photo comes from this website: https://www.cuisinenoirmag.com/tracye-mcquirter-10000-black-vegan-women/
- Notice at website says: "Any unauthorized duplication, download or reprint of images or content from this website for promotional or commercial use is strictly prohibited without written permission from The Global Food and Drink Initiative. Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Trademark pending." Twopower332.1938 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Video clip of a singer, copyright violation unless there is evidence otherwise. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
2.2.1: Not educationally useful (personal collection). Cjstepney (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.2.1: Not educationally useful Cjstepney (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.3.1: Photos of Identifiable People Cjstepney (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep He is playing Pokemon Go, so it is not a personal photo and it is in scope. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, clearly personal photo, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.3.1: Photos of Identifiable People Cjstepney (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep They are playing Pokemon Go, so it is not a personal photo and it is in scope. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, clearly personal photo, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.3.1: Photos of Identifiable People Cjstepney (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep She is playing Pokemon Go, so it is not a personal photo and it is in scope. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, clearly personal photo, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I must assume that this image has severe copyright issues: TinEye gives 70+ results, a valid source was not provided by the uploader and there is a watermark in the image. Please delete. Mosbatho (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Unusably poor quality. Ubcule (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Unusably poor quality. Ubcule (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Redundant against File:Zentis Logo.svg. IceWelder [✉] 19:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Redundant against File:Zentis Logo.svg. IceWelder [✉] 19:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Moheen as Logo. I think we should look into a) the declaration of permission on the talk page as well as whether this is even eligible for copyirght. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Permission via COM:OTRS is a good option. ~Moheen (keep talking) 03:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Old photo with clearly bogus cc license. Actual data and author needed to determine status, indeed per COM:EVID/COM:L Эlcobbola talk 17:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of User:Adara23y
[edit]
Uploader notes in the description that they are the person in the photos; need information about the people who took the photos and their licenses. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not Educationally Useful (Private image collection). Cjstepney (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep It shows clearly on people playing pokemon go (and the heat in 2016), obviously not private photo. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: streetscene in Riverside, California. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.3.1: Identifiable people, including minors. 2.4.5: Redundant/Bad Quality: Crooked image. Cjstepney (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep A slightly crooked image is acceptable on Commons, as long as it still clearly illustrate the subject and have educational use. Actually, there are many crooked images on Commons, are you going to nomiate deletion for all of them? --A1Cafel (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: streetscene in Riverside, California. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.4.4: Duplicates; 2.4.5: Redundant to other photo uploaded by user. Cjstepney (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete personally I don't have issue on its usability, but: derivative work of a screen containing the copyrighted video game. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The screen doesn't have any copyrighted materials The work "Pokemon Go" is {{PD-textlogo}}. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: But then, the colorful "G"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: redundant to File:Pokémon GO (28052812062).jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.2.1: Not educationally useful; 2.3.1: Photos of Identifiable People Cjstepney (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Weak keep I don't think this has no usability. It can be used in the article about Pokémon Go (maybe sections pertaining to popularity), or articles relating to video gaming behavior or manner. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It shows clearly on people playing pokemon go (and the heat in 2016), obviously has educational use. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 and A1Cafel: Wait, I'm afraid that this should be contested per COM:FOP Japan, to which the Commons FOP Japan can only apply to buildings, and not for sculptures to which some peoples sit down on them. . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry to above, the FOP Japan concern. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The sculptures are obviously the de minimis of the photo. The focus is on people who are playing Pokémon Go. P.S. If you do not say it, I didn't realize them. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: If I've read correctly, regarding the Japanese DM (which has differents from our main COM:DM): "When creating a copyrighted work of photography, sound recording or video recording, other copyrighted items that are incidental subjects of the work because they are hard to be separated from the item that is a subject of the work may be copied or translated along the work being created (only if they are minor components of the work being created). However, if, considering the kinds of the incidentally included works and the manner of the copying or translation, it unfairly is prejudicial to the interest of the copyright holders of the incidentally included works, they may not."
- This means that unless if you're sure that those sculptures are entirely not parts of the subject of this work, it's still possible to be claimed as "those sculptures are parts of a sane, required function of Pokémon Go, and so it's just parts of the subject" which still against at least COM:DM Japan. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: reasonable image of the park. The sculptures (actually anchors and chains) are obscured by the people, grass, and camera angle, only small fractions visible. Hence DM. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.2.1: Not educationally useful; 2.3.1: Photos of Identifiable People Cjstepney (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Weak keep It shows people gathering at a park and playing pokemon go, probably has educational use. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, poor unuseble composition. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.2.1: Not educationally useful Cjstepney (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep It shows clearly on people playing pokemon go (and the heat in 2016), obviously has educational use. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: reasonable image of the park. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.2.1: Not educationally useful; 2.3.1: Photos of Identifiable People Cjstepney (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep It shows clearly on people playing pokemon go (and the heat in 2016), obviously has educational use. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- The heat I cannot see nor feel (nobody using a water hose :) but the Pokemon Go thingy is serious. I see them people everywhere. I have no idea if that is something educational, but if so many people spend their time doing it, we can keep the file. "Identifiable people" are not doing anything indecent BTW. --E4024 (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete COM:FOP Japan concern per my comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon Go Trainers at Odaiba Marine Park (32011554304).jpg. . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The sculptures are obviously the de minimis of the photo. The focus is on people who are playing Pokémon Go. P.S. If you do not say it, I didn't realize them. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the sculptures are obviously DM. One needs a microscope or telescope or whatever it is called to see them. E4024 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: Please note that Japan has their own, different from default DM policy, so you need to confirm that they are entirely not "parts of a sane, required function of Pokémon Go", or otherwise still against that policy. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the sculptures are obviously DM. One needs a microscope or telescope or whatever it is called to see them. E4024 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: somewhat useful. The sculptures (actually anchors and chains) are obscured by the people, grass, and out-of-focus. Hence DM. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Same as File:Guillaume Pineault CITE-FM -- 2.jpg but with slightly different cropping and less contrast. Even the "fixed" version is of dubious quality. Ubcule (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
No source, certainly not "own work". Per en:Ourang Medan it's not sure that such a ship ever existed - looks like an arbitrary image of an old ship with unknown copyright status. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- The picture is definitely all over the net in this context including the boulevard press: Daily Mail article. --Count Count (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- But where does it originally come from? Who is the creator, what is the copyright status? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
1987-88 publication - IA publication date - meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely license on this royal portrait dating from 1935 and credited to a newspaper. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's a cropped version of an Illustrated London News photogravure of a portrait by Creator:John St Helier Lander exhibited at the Parker Salon in 1934.[1] See File:King George V in ceremonial robes of Order of The Garter.jpg for a copy of the original portrait in the collection of Guernsey Museums and Galleries. (There are multiple copies: see for example Museum of New Zealand and Victoria College, Jersey.) DrKay (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: kept, thanks for the comments of User:DrKay and for updating the description of the image. --rubin16 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Every image in Commons must be free in two countries: source country and USA. Source country UK demands 70 years from death (1944) and this has passed. USA demands 95 years from publication (1935) and this has not passed. The file can be restored after copyright expiration in 2031. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Azerbaijani Wikipedia is sourced but appears to be from http://www.vipsport.az/ru/projects/bayil-arena/ Ytoyoda (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
modern sculpture, no fop for sc. in russia Stolbovsky (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I agree. Balabinrm (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College (IA bulletinofmuseum158harv).pdf
[edit]2003-2007 publication - IA publication date -metadata issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
1995-96 publication? - IA publication date - meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
1993-94 publication, IA publication date metadata issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
2000 publication - IA publication date meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (IA annalidelmuse90199496muse).pdf
[edit]1994 publication - IA metadata publication date issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
L'indication de copyrigjt dans le nom de fichier me semble extrémement suspect Bertrand Labévue (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E4024 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Smooth O as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Previously deleted photos, since all uploads of User:Yahadzija have been deleted. Per: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yahadzija. It seems like a scan of a page of book whose copyright expired a long time ago. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is safe because author is listed as Vjenceslav Radimski (1832-1895). So he died more than 120 years ago. --MGA73 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per above.--Nanahuatl (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Per MGA73. -- Geagea (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement, no real source is mentioned DZwarrior1 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
No FoP in France. This is a modern bust, and the creator is unlikely to have died for 70 years A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Logo of a Danish university. Dubious CC license, probably above Danish TOO (and therefore not eligible for PD-simple) FASTILY 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 04:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Little world, Aichi prefecture - African plaza - Fabric with a portrait of Nelson Mandela - South Africa - Collected in 2011.jpg
[edit]
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 04:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent1011998ento).pdf
[edit]1998 publication? IA publication data meta data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
2001 Publication - IA publication date - meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
1997 Publication? IA publication date metadata issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent1062004ento).pdf
[edit]2004 Publication? IA publication date metadata issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent1072005ento).pdf
[edit]2005 Publication? IA publication date metadata issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent1082006ento).pdf
[edit]2006 publication- IA publication date meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent1042002ento).pdf
[edit]2002 publication - IA publication date - meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent1042002ent).pdf
[edit]2002 pubication? IA publication date - meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
2002 publication - IA publication date - meta data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
1998 publication - IA publication date metadata issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
1999 publication, IA publication date - meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
nicht-edukativ. Begründung: unter dem Deckmäntelchen vermeintlich besonderer Genauigkeit in der Abbildung bestimmter Feinstrumpfhosenqualitäten und -marken an einer Frau in lasziven Posen und ohne Unterwäsche, sexualisierte, herabwürdigende Perspektiven auf Frauenkörper, ohne dass diese einer Bebilderung von Wikimedia-Projekten dienlich oder zuträglich wären; die Verwendung insbesondere dieses Bildes wurde in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia umfänglich begründet auf mehreren Seiten abgelehnt, siehe Vandalismusmeldung. Zur Begründung verweise ich auf die Richtlinien Wikimedia Commons ist kein kostenloser Webhoster und Commons:Nudity/de – die Bilder sind softpornografisch auf RTL-Schmuddelfilmchen-Niveau. Ein neutraler Blick auf Strumpfhosen oder weibliche Körper in Strumpfhosen ist dabei nicht gewährleistet, vielmehr ist die Kameraperspektive voyeuristisch, fetischisierend. Dafür ist weder in Wikimedia Commons noch in Wikipedia der richtige Ort. (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- English translation: Non-educational. Reason: under the guise of supposedly extra special accuracy in the illustration of certain fine pantyhose qualities and brands on a woman in lascivious poses and without underwear, sexualized, degrading perspectives on women's bodies are presented, without being conducive or beneficial as an illustration for Wikimedia projects. The use of this image in particular was rejected in the German Wikipedia on several pages, see Vandalism report. For justification of this deletion request I refer to the guidelines Wikimedia Commons is not a free web host and Commons:Nudity - the images are soft pornographic on smut level. A neutral view on the subject pantyhose or female bodies in pantyhose is not presented, but the camera perspective is rather voyeuristic, fetishizing. Neither Wikimedia Commons nor Wikipedia is the right place for this kind of photography. --Grizma (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment small amount of sources to help the admins decide:
- Banners on the manufacturer website: [2] [3] [4] [5] Manufacturer glossary first entry under R that translates as diamond gusset. Applies to all the sheer or net tights Alisa is modelling. The Images are detailed enough. Discussion among dancing teachers in English Discussion among dancing teachers in German including parents behaviour with threatening to sue
- Sorry that I decided to go the "sex sells" route first. I also had something like this as next in mind: [6] But corona struck faster.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
![[2]](https://www.kunert.de/out/kunert-wco/img/popup/popup.png){kind=link}
![[3]](https://www.kunert.de/out/kunert-wco/img/mommytights/mommy-tights-banner.png){kind=link}
![[4]](https://www.kunert.de/out/pictures/generated/category/thumb/730_308_100/kunertstrumpfhosen.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://www.kunert.de/out/kunert-wco/img/showsecret/2020_11_110_ShowYourSecrets_Banner_Landingpage-ohneCTA.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://msg5.model-kartei.de/fd4e2f8e8389e9019ac883c11a63db30/5fd7ef52/n/j/k/k13808812/1e073cfd0146a285a148382cfa0fded01607892976EvCVlgEj.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep First let me state that this is that i dont understand how can anyone say that is not in scope and has no educational value. This image, for that, and for its content clearly in scope and with educational value.
- Second, the photographer and uploader, per his links, clearly shows that clothing companies use this kind of imagery in their advertising, so nothing abnormal here.
- Third, under the cloak of the lack of educational purpose, there are several problems with this deletion request, showing that the reason of this DR is nothing more than a moralistic crusade, be it from victorian prudish or from 21st century "moralists", starting with the user that opened this deletion request. Is almost, if not totally, slut shamming her, by blame the model for her choice of work. We are talking of professional models, working in their field of work.
- Starting with the most easy to dismount, the comment that "the pictures are soft pornographic” , “on RTL dirty film level" (in german) or “on smut level” i.e. smut as in this image is obscene language or matter, is clearly false, as this image does not depicts nothing more than a handbra and there are no depiction of the female genitalia, i.e. nothing more than implied nudity. Besides calling this “soft pornographic”, your comments continue to disdain this model in question, specially with the phrase "woman in lascivious poses and without underwear, sexualized, degrading perspectives on women's bodies". There can be differences of opinion of scope but using this kind of phrases is an demeaning and degradeting insult to the work of women like this, that freely choose to work as model. i.e. your comments do nothing more them denigrate themselves and their work.
- More comments, after the ones above, continue in the same track with phrases like “over-emphasized sexualized poses and/or nudity” or “possibilities to show tights in a less sexualizing way, especially in a way not displaying the female body as a sexual object” i usually see in religious extremists and\or anti-women rights people. For that, what admires me the most are persons that i assume are feminists (male or female), shaming adult and free women that make pose as photographic models, just because of this kind of work and calling their work nothing more than “displaying the female body as a sexual object”.
- Those are people that made a freely and willingly choice to pose nude or semi-nude. In these times of of strong attacks on women rights (work, personal, moral, sexual, reproductive) it frightens me to see some people that call themselves feminists attacking the choices of other women, calling their work, creepy, no-educational, worthless, over-sexualized, smut, soft porn and that they are objectifying themselves.
- Dont these women deserve respect for their choices and work, instead of name calling? Or these women do not deserve the same respect as any other honest work? And dont these comments seem almost like be "anti-women"?
- Give it how many loops, tricks, rounds and laps that you want but these comments remind me of the slut-saint dichotomy and of the slut-shaming that i thought was being thrown into the garbage bin of history. A patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices, typical of people that attack the political, spiritual, sexual, moral, reproductive and other basic rights under the cover of "moral, religious or prudency reasons"? But, alas, this same reasons seem to be returning, now not from religious extremists, but from some self-called progressives (they are not), when there is not a difference between these two sides of the same coin.
- Besides the insulting comments, the fact that this images are of an adult, mature and free women, modeling on their own terms and conditions, clearly as professional models should give you pause to think if you, some random Commons user, know more than a free and adult female models about they work and choices, i.e. If you should continuing to mansplain that they know less then you about their free choices and decisions of where, when, how and with whom they make this kind of images.
- So, is this not in fact an misogynist position? And what those that i suppose are feminists (male of female) have to say about the free choice of adult women? Are they not entitled to show (or not show) their bodies whatever the way, to whom and when they choose? Is it not feminism fighting to make women equal to men and and make free choices without anyone mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices? Is it not something that could said to be a patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices? Is it not the Antithesis of feminism?
- Per my comments above, disgrage or agree on scope, but please do not objectify this model(s) with your comments (of calling smut, porn, etc what is not) and show some respect for this model(s), their work and their free choices, even if so for the question of basic human decency and dignity of this model(s). Freedom of want, not freedom of don't. Tm (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ƏXPLICIT 12:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Logo is obviously a scan from print and not really "own work". It might be discussed whether the logo reaches TOO. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 12:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Nicht-edukativ. Begründung: unter dem Deckmäntelchen vermeintlich besonderer Genauigkeit in der Abbildung bestimmter Feinstrumpfhosenqualitäten und -marken an einer Frau in lasziven Posen und ohne Unterwäsche, sexualisierte, herabwürdigende Perspektiven auf Frauenkörper, ohne dass diese einer Bebilderung von Wikimedia-Projekten dienlich oder zuträglich wären. Zur Begründung verweise ich auf die Richtlinien Wikimedia Commons ist kein kostenloser Webhoster und Commons:Nudity/de – die Bilder sind softpornografisch auf RTL-Schmuddelfilmchen-Niveau. Ein neutraler Blick auf Strumpfhosen oder weibliche Körper in Strumpfhosen ist dabei nicht gewährleistet, vielmehr ist die Kameraperspektive voyeuristisch, fetischisierend. Dafür ist weder in Wikimedia Commons noch in Wikipedia der richtige Ort. Grizma (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- English translation: Non-educational. Reason: under the guise of supposedly extra special accuracy in the illustration of certain fine pantyhose qualities and brands on a woman in lascivious poses and without underwear, sexualized, degrading perspectives on women's bodies are presented, without being conducive or beneficial as an illustration for Wikimedia projects. For justification I refer to the guidelines Wikimedia Commons is not a free web host and Commons:Nudity - the images are soft pornographic on smut level. A neutral view on the subject pantyhose or female bodies in pantyhose is not presented, but the camera perspective is rather voyeuristic, fetishizing. Neither Wikimedia Commons nor Wikipedia is the right place for this kind of photography. --Grizma (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete for the above mentioned reasons. I'd like to add that the majority of photos with Alisa are not serving Wikipedia's purpose. Her over-emphasized sexualized poses and/or nudity distract from whatever the photo could depict in an encyclopedia. --Fuchs B (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment(I am the author of the Image in question) While I have to admit that I'm not to fond of the 3 (4 if you count the one that is overwritten by this one) with her leaning on the wall like that, we could request the "Fotowerkstatt" on the German Wikipedia to make it look like that this one here on [www.wolfordshop.com] Click at your own risk or look at these two Wikipedia entries before you do that: en:wolford, and the German one of de:Vivienne_Westwood. The English one on Mrs. Westwoot reads like a clickbait headline and is missing it's original source on the web. But I like the quote about Queen Mum being amused.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I really do not understand why this picture is on Wikipedia Commons and there is no reason why it should stay there. I totally agree with the above mentioned non-educative reason. Furthermore there are several possibilities to show tights in a less sexualizing way, especially in a way not displaying the female body as a sexual object. Furthermore as far as I understand the stockings shoud be on focus, not the body. Wikipedia and the images on commons are accessible and usable for a worldwide community and in the year 2020 we should know better, how to handle images on a global encyclopedia - please delete this picture.--Elena Patrise (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment small amount of sources to help the admin decide:
- Banners on the manufacturer website: [7] [8] [9] [10] Manufacturer glossary first entry under R that translates as diamond gusset. Applies to all the sheer or net tights Alisa is modelling. The Images are detailed enough. Discussion among dancing teachers in English Discussion among dancing teachers in German including parents behaviour with threading to sue
- Sorry that I decided to go the "sex sells" route first. I also had something like this as next in mind: [11] But corona struck faster.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete this particular Image as 3 replacements have been created. Sorry, but I'm doing this the first time.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep I see nothing wrong with these images. If these tights show more of a "sexual" perspective than other images available, then that is their educational value (ie "what makes tights or female posing or a combination thereof appear more sexual"). A whole human, or having both perspectives available, is more informative than a pair of legs. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep First let me state that this is quality image, so i dont understand how can anyone say that is not in scope and has no educational value. This image, for that, and for its content clearly in scope and with educational value.
- Second, the photographer and uploader, per his links, clearly shows that clothing companies use this kind of imagery in their advertising of pantyhoses, so nothing abnormal here and the "replacements" are not really replacements and, in my opinion, more objectifying than the original one as "replacements" could be made with an mannequin.
- Third, under the cloak of the lack of educational purpose, there are several problems with this deletion request, showing that the reason of this DR is nothing more than a moralistic crusade, be it from victorian prudish or from 21st century "moralists", starting with the user that opened this deletion request. Is almost, if not totally, slut shamming her, by blame the model for her choice of work. We are talking of professional models, working in their field of work.
- Starting with the most easy to dismount, the comment that "the pictures are soft pornographic” , “on RTL dirty film level" (in german) or “on smut level” i.e. smut as in this image is obscene language or matter, is clearly false, as this image does not depicts nothing more than a handbra and there are no depiction of the female genitalia, i.e. nothing more than implied nudity. Besides calling this “soft pornographic”, your comments continue to disdain this model in question, specially with the phrase "woman in lascivious poses and without underwear, sexualized, degrading perspectives on women's bodies". There can be differences of opinion of scope but using this kind of phrases is an demeaning and degradeting insult to the work of women like this, that freely choose to work as model. i.e. your comments do nothing more them denigrate themselves and their work.
- More comments, after the ones above, continue in the same track with phrases like “over-emphasized sexualized poses and/or nudity” or “possibilities to show tights in a less sexualizing way, especially in a way not displaying the female body as a sexual object” i usually see in religious extremists and\or anti-women rights people. For that, what admires me the most are persons that i assume are feminists (male or female), shaming adult and free women that make pose as photographic models, just because of this kind of work and calling their work nothing more than “displaying the female body as a sexual object”.
- Those are people that made a freely and willingly choice to pose nude or semi-nude. In these times of of strong attacks on women rights (work, personal, moral, sexual, reproductive) it frightens me to see some people that call themselves feminists attacking the choices of other women, calling their work, creepy, no-educational, worthless, over-sexualized, smut, soft porn and that they are objectifying themselves.
- Dont these women deserve respect for their choices and work, instead of name calling? Or these women do not deserve the same respect as any other honest work? And dont these comments seem almost like be "anti-women"?
- Give it how many loops, tricks, rounds and laps that you want but these comments remind me of the slut-saint dichotomy and of the slut-shaming that i thought was being thrown into the garbage bin of history. A patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices, typical of people that attack the political, spiritual, sexual, moral, reproductive and other basic rights under the cover of "moral, religious or prudency reasons"? But, alas, this same reasons seem to be returning, now not from religious extremists, but from some self-called progressives (they are not), when there is not a difference between these two sides of the same coin.
- Besides the insulting comments, the fact that this images are of an adult, mature and free women, modeling on their own terms and conditions, clearly as professional models should give you pause to think if you, some random Commons user, know more than a free and adult female models about they work and choices, i.e. If you should continuing to mansplain that they know less then you about their free choices and decisions of where, when, how and with whom they make this kind of images.
- So, is this not in fact an misogynist position? And what those that i suppose are feminists (male of female) have to say about the free choice of adult women? Are they not entitled to show (or not show) their bodies whatever the way, to whom and when they choose? Is it not feminism fighting to make women equal to men and and make free choices without anyone mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices? Is it not something that could said to be a patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices? Is it not the Antithesis of feminism?
- Per my comments above, disgrage or agree on scope, but please do not objectify this model(s) with your comments (of calling smut, porn, etc what is not) and show some respect for this model(s), their work and their free choices, even if so for the question of basic human decency and dignity of this model(s). Freedom of want, not freedom of don't. Tm (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ƏXPLICIT 12:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Nicht-edukativ. Begründung: unter dem Deckmäntelchen vermeintlich besonderer Genauigkeit in der Abbildung bestimmter Feinstrumpfhosenqualitäten und -marken an einer Frau in lasziven Posen und ohne Unterwäsche, sexualisierte, herabwürdigende Perspektiven auf Frauenkörper, ohne dass diese einer Bebilderung von Wikimedia-Projekten dienlich oder zuträglich wären. Zur Begründung verweise ich auf die Richtlinien Wikimedia Commons ist kein kostenloser Webhoster und Commons:Nudity/de – die Bilder sind softpornografisch auf RTL-Schmuddelfilmchen-Niveau. Ein neutraler Blick auf Strumpfhosen oder weibliche Körper in Strumpfhosen ist dabei nicht gewährleistet, vielmehr ist die Kameraperspektive voyeuristisch, fetischisierend. Dafür ist weder in Wikimedia Commons noch in Wikipedia der richtige Ort. Grizma (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment (Ich bin Urheber dieses Bildes) Dieses Bild und eine Variante mit verdeckten Nippeln, die beide als Qualitätsbild bewertet wurden, wurde erschaffen um die missbräuchliche Verwendung des Begriffs "Unten Ohne", auf englisch "going commando" zu illustrieren. Zumal dem Weglassen eines Slips auch negativ assoziiertes Verhalten, wie z.B. Lüsternheit, zugeschrieben wird. Wie zu sehen ist, ist diese junge Frau dennoch deutlich mit dem Miederteil ihrer Strumpfhose bedeckt. Die unbedeckte Brüste orientieren sich zum einen an der weiterverbreiteten "OBEN-Ohne" Bzw. "fast Nackt" Bebilderung von Strumpfhosen in der Bewerbung des Produkts. Zum anderen würde sich das gleiche Bild ergeben wenn z.B. eine Kleid mit eingearbeitetem BH, wie hier als Oberbekleidung getragen würde. Das Bild soll sie nun mal in Unterwäsche zeigen. Auch bzw. insbesondere wenn diese nicht der Vorstellung (BH & Slip) einer vermuteten Allgemeinheit entspricht.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oder anders ausgedrückt: Dies ist eine Frau, keine Schaufenster, in einer Form von Unterwäsche wie sie in vielen Supermärkten zu finden ist. Die Behauptung das sie (am Unterleib) nackt ist, ist ein Konstrukt in den Köpfen derer Menschen, denen meiner Erfahrung nach anerzogen wurde, das ein Slip ein Merkmal einer Keuschen und Schamhaften Frau ist. Ich schreibe dies, da ich sehe das dieses Bild NICHT in diesem Kontext auf der Persischen Wikipedia verwendet wird. Hm... :(--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep First let me state that this is that i dont understand how can anyone say that is not in scope and has no educational value. This image, for that, and for its content clearly in scope and with educational value.
- Second, the photographer and uploader, per his links, clearly shows that clothing companies use this kind of imagery in their advertising, so nothing abnormal here.
- Third, under the cloak of the lack of educational purpose, there are several problems with this deletion request, showing that the reason of this DR is nothing more than a moralistic crusade, be it from victorian prudish or from 21st century "moralists", starting with the user that opened this deletion request. Is almost, if not totally, slut shamming her, by blame the model for her choice of work. We are talking of professional models, working in their field of work.
- Starting with the most easy to dismount, the comment that "the pictures are soft pornographic” , “on RTL dirty film level" (in german) or “on smut level” i.e. smut as in this image is obscene language or matter, is clearly false, as this image does not depicts nothing more than a handbra and there are no depiction of the female genitalia, i.e. nothing more than implied nudity. Besides calling this “soft pornographic”, your comments continue to disdain this model in question, specially with the phrase "woman in lascivious poses and without underwear, sexualized, degrading perspectives on women's bodies". There can be differences of opinion of scope but using this kind of phrases is an demeaning and degradeting insult to the work of women like this, that freely choose to work as model. i.e. your comments do nothing more them denigrate themselves and their work.
- More comments, after the ones above, continue in the same track with phrases like “over-emphasized sexualized poses and/or nudity” or “possibilities to show tights in a less sexualizing way, especially in a way not displaying the female body as a sexual object” i usually see in religious extremists and\or anti-women rights people. For that, what admires me the most are persons that i assume are feminists (male or female), shaming adult and free women that make pose as photographic models, just because of this kind of work and calling their work nothing more than “displaying the female body as a sexual object”.
- Those are people that made a freely and willingly choice to pose nude or semi-nude. In these times of of strong attacks on women rights (work, personal, moral, sexual, reproductive) it frightens me to see some people that call themselves feminists attacking the choices of other women, calling their work, creepy, no-educational, worthless, over-sexualized, smut, soft porn and that they are objectifying themselves.
- Dont these women deserve respect for their choices and work, instead of name calling? Or these women do not deserve the same respect as any other honest work? And dont these comments seem almost like be "anti-women"?
- Give it how many loops, tricks, rounds and laps that you want but these comments remind me of the slut-saint dichotomy and of the slut-shaming that i thought was being thrown into the garbage bin of history. A patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices, typical of people that attack the political, spiritual, sexual, moral, reproductive and other basic rights under the cover of "moral, religious or prudency reasons"? But, alas, this same reasons seem to be returning, now not from religious extremists, but from some self-called progressives (they are not), when there is not a difference between these two sides of the same coin.
- Besides the insulting comments, the fact that this images are of an adult, mature and free women, modeling on their own terms and conditions, clearly as professional models should give you pause to think if you, some random Commons user, know more than a free and adult female models about they work and choices, i.e. If you should continuing to mansplain that they know less then you about their free choices and decisions of where, when, how and with whom they make this kind of images.
- So, is this not in fact an misogynist position? And what those that i suppose are feminists (male of female) have to say about the free choice of adult women? Are they not entitled to show (or not show) their bodies whatever the way, to whom and when they choose? Is it not feminism fighting to make women equal to men and and make free choices without anyone mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices? Is it not something that could said to be a patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices? Is it not the Antithesis of feminism?
- Per my comments above, disgrage or agree on scope, but please do not objectify this model(s) with your comments (of calling smut, porn, etc what is not) and show some respect for this model(s), their work and their free choices, even if so for the question of basic human decency and dignity of this model(s). Freedom of want, not freedom of don't. Tm (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ƏXPLICIT 12:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Kunert Beauty 7 tights in the colour candy and red lace shrug on black leather couch - landscape version of the image.jpg
[edit]
Nicht-edukativ. Begründung: unter dem Deckmäntelchen vermeintlich besonderer Genauigkeit in der Abbildung bestimmter Feinstrumpfhosenqualitäten und -marken an einer Frau in lasziven Posen und ohne Unterwäsche, sexualisierte, herabwürdigende Perspektiven auf Frauenkörper, ohne dass diese einer Bebilderung von Wikimedia-Projekten dienlich oder zuträglich wären. Zur Begründung verweise ich auf die Richtlinien Wikimedia Commons ist kein kostenloser Webhoster und Commons:Nudity/de – die Bilder sind softpornografisch auf RTL-Schmuddelfilmchen-Niveau. Ein neutraler Blick auf Strumpfhosen oder weibliche Körper in Strumpfhosen ist dabei nicht gewährleistet, vielmehr ist die Kameraperspektive voyeuristisch, fetischisierend. Dafür ist weder in Wikimedia Commons noch in Wikipedia der richtige Ort. Grizma (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- English translation: Non-educational. Reason: under the guise of supposedly extra special accuracy in the illustration of certain fine pantyhose qualities and brands on a woman in lascivious poses and without underwear, sexualized, degrading perspectives on women's bodies are presented, without being conducive or beneficial as an illustration for Wikimedia projects. For justification I refer to the guidelines Wikimedia Commons is not a free web host and Commons:Nudity - the images are soft pornographic on smut level. A neutral view on the subject pantyhose or female bodies in pantyhose is not presented, but the camera perspective is rather voyeuristic, fetishizing. Neither Wikimedia Commons nor Wikipedia is the right place for this kind of photography. --Grizma (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment small amount of sources to help the admins decide:
- Banners on the manufacturer website: [12] [13] [14] [15] Manufacturer glossary first entry under R that translates as diamond gusset. Applies to all the sheer or net tights Alisa is modelling. The Images are detailed enough. Discussion among dancing teachers in English Discussion among dancing teachers in German including parents behaviour with threatening to sue
- Sorry that I decided to go the "sex sells" route first. I also had something like this as next in mind: [16] But corona struck faster.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep First let me state that this is that i dont understand how can anyone say that is not in scope and has no educational value. This image, for that, and for its content clearly in scope and with educational value.
- Second, the photographer and uploader, per his links, clearly shows that clothing companies use this kind of imagery in their advertising, so nothing abnormal here.
- Third, under the cloak of the lack of educational purpose, there are several problems with this deletion request, showing that the reason of this DR is nothing more than a moralistic crusade, be it from victorian prudish or from 21st century "moralists", starting with the user that opened this deletion request. Is almost, if not totally, slut shamming her, by blame the model for her choice of work. We are talking of professional models, working in their field of work.
- Starting with the most easy to dismount, the comment that "the pictures are soft pornographic” , “on RTL dirty film level" (in german) or “on smut level” i.e. smut as in this image is obscene language or matter, is clearly false, as this image does not depicts nothing more than a handbra and there are no depiction of the female genitalia, i.e. nothing more than implied nudity. Besides calling this “soft pornographic”, your comments continue to disdain this model in question, specially with the phrase "woman in lascivious poses and without underwear, sexualized, degrading perspectives on women's bodies". There can be differences of opinion of scope but using this kind of phrases is an demeaning and degradeting insult to the work of women like this, that freely choose to work as model. i.e. your comments do nothing more them denigrate themselves and their work.
- More comments, after the ones above, continue in the same track with phrases like “over-emphasized sexualized poses and/or nudity” or “possibilities to show tights in a less sexualizing way, especially in a way not displaying the female body as a sexual object” i usually see in religious extremists and\or anti-women rights people. For that, what admires me the most are persons that i assume are feminists (male or female), shaming adult and free women that make pose as photographic models, just because of this kind of work and calling their work nothing more than “displaying the female body as a sexual object”.
- Those are people that made a freely and willingly choice to pose nude or semi-nude. In these times of of strong attacks on women rights (work, personal, moral, sexual, reproductive) it frightens me to see some people that call themselves feminists attacking the choices of other women, calling their work, creepy, no-educational, worthless, over-sexualized, smut, soft porn and that they are objectifying themselves.
- Dont these women deserve respect for their choices and work, instead of name calling? Or these women do not deserve the same respect as any other honest work? And dont these comments seem almost like be "anti-women"?
- Give it how many loops, tricks, rounds and laps that you want but these comments remind me of the slut-saint dichotomy and of the slut-shaming that i thought was being thrown into the garbage bin of history. A patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices, typical of people that attack the political, spiritual, sexual, moral, reproductive and other basic rights under the cover of "moral, religious or prudency reasons"? But, alas, this same reasons seem to be returning, now not from religious extremists, but from some self-called progressives (they are not), when there is not a difference between these two sides of the same coin.
- Besides the insulting comments, the fact that this images are of an adult, mature and free women, modeling on their own terms and conditions, clearly as professional models should give you pause to think if you, some random Commons user, know more than a free and adult female models about they work and choices, i.e. If you should continuing to mansplain that they know less then you about their free choices and decisions of where, when, how and with whom they make this kind of images.
- So, is this not in fact an misogynist position? And what those that i suppose are feminists (male of female) have to say about the free choice of adult women? Are they not entitled to show (or not show) their bodies whatever the way, to whom and when they choose? Is it not feminism fighting to make women equal to men and and make free choices without anyone mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices? Is it not something that could said to be a patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices? Is it not the Antithesis of feminism?
- Per my comments above, disgrage or agree on scope, but please do not objectify this model(s) with your comments (of calling smut, porn, etc what is not) and show some respect for this model(s), their work and their free choices, even if so for the question of basic human decency and dignity of this model(s). Freedom of want, not freedom of don't. Tm (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ƏXPLICIT 12:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent951993ento).pdf
[edit]1993 publication - IA publication date metadata issue? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
«Official computer-generated image showing the Project 23900. © JSC Zelenodolsk Design Bureau». Required OTRS permission. 176.59.46.127 08:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Source link is dead and the license was never reviewed. Own work is untrue (photo is made in 1914), no publication data. Probably we must now delete the file. Taivo (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- The source is archived. If the picture created in 1914 was published in 1914 in the USA, it is free. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept, per Andrei. Taivo (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The file shows the logo of the Caledonian Sleeper in UK, which is operated by an UK company. Per COM:TOO UK, as the threshold of originality in UK is very low, it is unlikely that the logo itself is simple enough to be not protected locally. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Delete: the file source webpage indicates a CC-sa-nc-4.0 license and beside which this page Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands#Outside Europe indicates such stamps are copyright for 50 years after the death of the author, who appear to be unknown, so they might be undeleted in 2041, i.e., 50 year after creation. However, there is no clarity as to the stamps of the Netherland Antilles but if the Stamps section of the page applies, then the even longer period of 70 years is the term. Ww2censor (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Porque una persona me lo quiere comprar y fueron subidas por error Carol Skullart (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
[[Category:{{subst:delete2|image=User:Carol Skullart]] [[Category:{{subst:idw|User:Carol Skullart]]
Deleted: uploads by uploader have already been deleted. closing this ghost RfD. --Pitke (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Soviet posters uploaded by User:Cekli829
[edit]- File:Despite the rise in mechanized farming, “we cannot dispense with the horse” – Russian and Uzbek, Tashkent, 1933 (Mardjani).jpg
- the artist died in 1957
- File:Плакат на узбекском и русском языках, 1933 г. Автор — В. Еремян.jpg
- the artist died in 1963
- File:M. Reich. Millions of workers and collective farmers are depositors of savings banks. Depositors! Require savings banks attentive service and fast execution of your orders. 1934.jpg
- the artist died in 1966
- File:Плакат 1933 года призывает уложиться в срок при сборе урожая хлопка. Автор — С. Мальт.jpg
- the artist died in 1968
- File:Poster of Azerbaijan 1934. Planned economy.jpg
- the artist died in 1969
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Not yet PD --5.22.135.116 13:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Not yet 70 years since artists' deaths (COM:RUSSIA). -M.nelson (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not in PD yet (less than 70 years p.m.a.). --Pitke (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Relaxed pose on the railing but noticing someone taking an perhaps inappropriate long look admiring the smooth buttocks - Modelled by Lady Alexi.jpg
[edit]
Nicht-edukativ. Begründung: unter dem Deckmäntelchen vermeintlich besonderer Genauigkeit in der Abbildung bestimmter Unterwäsche-/Bekleidungsqualitäten und -marken an einer Frau in lasziver Pose, sexualisierte, fetischisierende Perspektiven auf Frauenkörper (hier: der Hintern), ohne dass diese einer Bebilderung von Wikimedia-Projekten dienlich oder zuträglich wären. Zur Begründung verweise ich auf die Richtlinie Wikimedia Commons ist kein kostenloser Webhoster – das Bild ist fetischisierend, wie auch die Dateibeschreibung und -bezeichnung deutlich macht. Ein neutraler Blick auf Mode oder weibliche Körper ist dabei nicht gewährleistet, vielmehr ist die Kameraperspektive voyeuristisch, fetischisierend. Dafür ist weder in Wikimedia Commons noch in Wikipedia der richtige Ort. Grizma (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- English translation: Non-educational. Reason: under the guise of supposedly extra special accuracy in the illustration of certain fine pantyhose and underwear qualities and brands on a woman in lascivious poses and without underwear, sexualized, degrading perspectives on women's bodies (here: with focus on butt as title makes very clear) are presented, without being conducive or beneficial as an illustration for Wikimedia projects. For justification I refer to the guidelines Wikimedia Commons is not a free web host and Commons:Nudity - the images are soft pornographic on smut level. A neutral view on fashion or female bodies in fashion clothing is not presented, but the camera perspective is rather voyeuristic, fetishizing. Neither Wikimedia Commons nor Wikipedia is the right place for this kind of photography. --Grizma (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment (I am the author of the Image in question) In this case, I pretty much agree with your assessment. So we (Alex and I) succeeded in part with our intention. But what does the look on her face mean to you in this re-enacted scene? A part a puppet usually can't use to well. A feature that is often, if not always, absent from the low quality candid images that are often uploaded to commons.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment it is also an alternative example to these two. The second one was not even planned as such.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep First let me state that this is that i dont understand how can anyone say that is not in scope and has no educational value. This image, for that, and for its content clearly in scope and with educational value.
Second, the photographer and uploader, per his links, clearly shows what was his intent, so nothing abnormal here.
- Third, under the cloak of the lack of educational purpose, there are several problems with this deletion request, showing that the reason of this DR is nothing more than a moralistic crusade, be it from victorian prudish or from 21st century "moralists", starting with the user that opened this deletion request. Is almost, if not totally, slut shamming her, by blame the model for her choice of work. We are talking of professional models, working in their field of work.
- Starting with the most easy to dismount, the comment that "the pictures are soft pornographic” , “on RTL dirty film level" (in german) or “on smut level” i.e. smut as in this image is obscene language or matter, is clearly false, as this image does not depicts nothing more than a handbra and there are no depiction of the female genitalia, i.e. nothing more than implied nudity. Besides calling this “soft pornographic”, your comments continue to disdain this model in question, specially with the phrase "woman in lascivious poses and without underwear, sexualized, degrading perspectives on women's bodies". There can be differences of opinion of scope but using this kind of phrases is an demeaning and degradeting insult to the work of women like this, that freely choose to work as model. i.e. your comments do nothing more them denigrate themselves and their work.
- More comments, after the ones above, continue in the same track with phrases like “over-emphasized sexualized poses and/or nudity” or “possibilities to show tights in a less sexualizing way, especially in a way not displaying the female body as a sexual object” i usually see in religious extremists and\or anti-women rights people. For that, what admires me the most are persons that i assume are feminists (male or female), shaming adult and free women that make pose as photographic models, just because of this kind of work and calling their work nothing more than “displaying the female body as a sexual object”.
- Those are people that made a freely and willingly choice to pose nude or semi-nude. In these times of of strong attacks on women rights (work, personal, moral, sexual, reproductive) it frightens me to see some people that call themselves feminists attacking the choices of other women, calling their work, creepy, no-educational, worthless, over-sexualized, smut, soft porn and that they are objectifying themselves.
- Dont these women deserve respect for their choices and work, instead of name calling? Or these women do not deserve the same respect as any other honest work? And dont these comments seem almost like be "anti-women"?
- Give it how many loops, tricks, rounds and laps that you want but these comments remind me of the slut-saint dichotomy and of the slut-shaming that i thought was being thrown into the garbage bin of history. A patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices, typical of people that attack the political, spiritual, sexual, moral, reproductive and other basic rights under the cover of "moral, religious or prudency reasons"? But, alas, this same reasons seem to be returning, now not from religious extremists, but from some self-called progressives (they are not), when there is not a difference between these two sides of the same coin.
- Besides the insulting comments, the fact that this images are of an adult, mature and free women, modeling on their own terms and conditions, clearly as professional models should give you pause to think if you, some random Commons user, know more than a free and adult female models about they work and choices, i.e. If you should continuing to mansplain that they know less then you about their free choices and decisions of where, when, how and with whom they make this kind of images.
- So, is this not in fact an misogynist position? And what those that i suppose are feminists (male of female) have to say about the free choice of adult women? Are they not entitled to show (or not show) their bodies whatever the way, to whom and when they choose? Is it not feminism fighting to make women equal to men and and make free choices without anyone mocking, denigrating and lower their own choices? Is it not something that could said to be a patronizing and moralistic view, that shames and lowers one woman for their choices? Is it not the Antithesis of feminism?
- Per my comments above, disgrage or agree on scope, but please do not objectify this model(s) with your comments (of calling smut, porn, etc what is not) and show some respect for this model(s), their work and their free choices, even if so for the question of basic human decency and dignity of this model(s). Freedom of want, not freedom of don't. Tm (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; consensus seems to be that the file has no claim to being pornographic, and does have educational value. The file name may not be wholly appropriate, but that is not within the scope of a RfD. --Pitke (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Caommons only with OTRS-permission. I do not consider this a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, pictorial part of the logo probably is not simple enough to be free to use without permission. --Pitke (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
2010 publication, and not a work of US Gov. This seems to be an example of the IA metadata issue for publication dates, which has been mentioned previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete "Copyright © 2010 by the California Academy of Sciences" on p2; not US Gov. -M.nelson (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, source license [17] is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. —RP88 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
1987 publication - IA publication date meta-date issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no apparent notice, nor was there subsequent registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: {{PD-US-1978-89}} since published in 1987 without copyright notice and without subsequent registration with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. —RP88 (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
1988 Publication, IA publication date refers to start of series not to date of actual volume.
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (17787845924).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (17787966654).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (17788003154).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (17788047654).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (17790044083).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18222720268).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18222774318).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18222779818).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18222807768).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18222876150).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18222889220).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18222898880).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18222921560).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18224329989).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18224487129).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18384154656).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18384198576).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18384246436).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18410495315).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18410637775).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18410675365).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18412246471).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1988) (18412258641).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (IA annalidelmuse87198889muse).pdf
_(17787845924).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17787966654).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17788003154).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17788047654).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17790044083).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18222720268).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18222774318).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18222779818).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18222807768).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18222876150).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18222889220).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18222898880).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18222921560).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18224329989).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18224487129).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18384154656).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18384198576).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18384246436).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18410495315).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18410637775).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18410675365).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18412246471).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18412258641).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- The document has no notice, and was not subsequently registered. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
- Noting that some photos in these might be PD-Italy, but that drawings probably are not.
- Also:
- Category:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1992) - 1992
- Category:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1982) - 1982
- Category:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1974) - 1974
- Category:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1966) - 1966
- Category:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1963) - 1963
- Category:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1961) - 1961
- Category:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1958) - 1958
&c. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Might be worth an admin mass checking all post 1925 dated cats for this "journal". ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The files listed and the files in the categories listed. --Elly (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC) @ShakespeareFan00: , if you've got the time, can you nominate the other cat's? I only deleted the files in the cats you listed here. Thanks, Elly (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
1986 publication date? IA date seems to be the start of the series as opposed to the actual volume date.
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (17790276983).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18223157238).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18224737939).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18224892269).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18384475606).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18384566686).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18406809182).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18410986435).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18412555111).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18412578821).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (1986) (18412794971).jpg
- File:Annali del Museo civico di storia naturale Giacomo Doria (IA annalidelmuse86198687muse).pdf
_(17790276983).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18223157238).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18224737939).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18224892269).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18384475606).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18384566686).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18406809182).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18410986435).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18412555111).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18412578821).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18412794971).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no notice and there was no subsequent renewal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination, copyrighted in Italy as these images and text are published in 1986. --Elly (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Photos on the website of the Presidency of the Azerbaijan state can be used with CC-BY. However, this photo was taken on behalf of the Azerbaijan National Assembly see. According to what the parliament wrote on its website, copyrighted. I suggest it be deleted. Uncitoyen (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Moheen as Logo. This is below the American TOO... not so sure about Bangladesh. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: according Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bangladesh artistic works are copyrighted. I consider this simple logo not artistic and consequently it kan be kept. --Elly (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
If this is 1907 photo, then we cannot be sure, that the author in 70 years dead. Taivo (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is not a photo anyway, it is painting. Here is the version without watermark. What's more important, here is the version claimed to be created when the sitter, Δημήτριος Καρυτσιώτης (1741–1819), was alive. However, this coloured painting seems to be a copy of an original one: maybe this copy was painted in 1907. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Андрей Романенко: , I found this website with both images. Does that shed some light on the origin/age/author of the colored version? If not, I think the image should be deleted, it cannot be considered an exact copy of the original (which I uploaded to Commons, File:Karitsiotis-4.jpg). Elly (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Okay, let's suppose that oiriginal painting is in PD but its reworked and colorized version is not. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
assigning someone else's image: https://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/airborne/structure/details.htm?id=11265@egOrganization Nickel nitride (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion as deleting would not be in accordance with Com:D. @Nickel nitride: , you may change the attribution and licencing similar to other emblems in Category:Emblems of the Russian Airborne Troops. Thanks,. --Elly (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent911989ento).pdf
[edit]1989 Publication? IA publication date metadata issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Published 1989 not pre-1926; {{PD-US-expired}} not valid. Presumably copyrighted. -M.nelson (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent2751973ento).pdf
[edit]1973 publication - IA publication date meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There in no apparent notice, and there was no timely registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
1954=56 publciation. Was there a renewal? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no apparent notice, and there was no timely registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
1969-1972 publication, IA metadata issue? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This book is public domain in the US, and isn't renewed for copyright. --2001:4452:493:9400:9952:99DB:48E:7F23 04:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)- I think, I should change that license. --2001:4452:493:9400:9952:99DB:48E:7F23 05:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- There was also no registration; I agree with the updated license. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
- I think, I should change that license. --2001:4452:493:9400:9952:99DB:48E:7F23 05:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent5758195556ento).pdf
[edit]1956 publication? Was there a renewal? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no apparent notice; there was no registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Contributions from the Gray Herbarium of Harvard University. (IA mobot31753003743033).pdf
[edit]This is not a pre 1925 work, publication date is 1963 - Was this renewed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no notice nor was there timely registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the International Ornithological Congress (IA proceeding13119621963inte).pdf
[edit]This is not a pre 1925 work - Publication date (1962) [1963] , despite whats the publication date field claims ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no notice, and it is thus in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-Australia. --Yann (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
1959 publication, so not a pre 1925 publication as claimed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- See also Category: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Volume 119 (1959) and related. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also Category:Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Volume 121, Category:Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Volume 94 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Would suggest a check for renewals as these pre-date 1964. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- For the nominated file, there is no apparent notice nor was there timely registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College (IA bulletinofmuseum5253harv).pdf
[edit]1952-1953 publication , Was there a renewal? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no apparent notice, nor was there timely registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent2861984ento).pdf
[edit]1984 publication - IA publcation date - meta-data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no notice, and there was no subsequent registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-1978-89. --Yann (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington (IA proceedingsofent2781976ento).pdf
[edit]1976 publication? Was this renewed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no apparent notice, and there was no timely registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
1981-1983 publication - IA publication date -meta data issue ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no notice, and there was no subsequent registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
1984-1986 publication - IA publication date meta-data issues ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no apparent notice, and there was no subsequent registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not a work of the US Federal Government, it's a report submitted by third (non US gov) parties, however I am not seeing an obvious notice. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no notice nor was there timely registration. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Proceedings of the International Ornithological Congress (IA proceedingsofint91938inte).pdf
[edit]This is not a pre 1925 work ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Australia. --Yann (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Conference contributions and submitted papers are not necessarily by US Gov employee participants ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- The collection is considered a work of the U.S. government, as are any articles written by government officials. In addition, the work as a whole contains no notice, and there was no subsequent registration; thus, it is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: PD-US-no notice. --Yann (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Animal Ecology (1961)
[edit]This is not a work of US Gov. 1961 publication with notice.
- File:Animal Ecology (1961) (18008635398).jpg
- File:Animal Ecology (1961) (18008919828).jpg
- File:Animal Ecology (1961) (18008932220).jpg
- File:Animal Ecology (1961) (18009032120).jpg
- File:Animal Ecology (1961) (18010441889).jpg
- File:Animal Ecology (1961) (18193031132).jpg
- File:Animal Ecology (1961) (18197618091).jpg
- File:Animal Ecology (1961) (18197843791).jpg
- File:Animal Ecology (IA animalecology00kend).pdf
_(18008635398).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18008919828).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18008932220).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18009032120).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18010441889).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18193031132).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18197618091).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18197843791).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- This work was not renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not necessarily a PD-US-Gov work. but given the date was there a renewal ?
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20038799444).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20038838804).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20038952674).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20040385883).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20040405493).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20040465843).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20040492023).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20040512613).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20473485060).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20473485928).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20473495860).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20474596349).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20474616679).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20474731479).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20474735449).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20474752179).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20474763419).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20635073786).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20635137266).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20635160566).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20635168306).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20635214146).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20635280836).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20652129832).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20652143802).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20652151692).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20652204922).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20652208722).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20652216412).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20661402645).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20661511605).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20668018001).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20668040961).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20668056041).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20668110221).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20668137161).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20668141201).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20668161021).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_rodents_(1965)_(20668173091).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Published in 1965, copyright notice present, not free yet. --rubin16 (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Not a work of US gov, and postdates 1924. The 1940 PDF give has a clear notice... Was this renewed?
- File:Animal biology (1933) (18193346022).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1933) (17576342773).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1933) (17576583433).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1933) (18009618710).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1933) (18170727386).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1933) (18170734136).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1933) (18170915556).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1933) (18196548345).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1933) (18197190145).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1940) (17574286544).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1940) (17574843824).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1940) (18009759868).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1940) (18010452059).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1940) (18011156649).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1940) (18011235159).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1940) (18011392849).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1940) (18193472952).jpg
- File:Animal biology (1940) (18197373065).jpg
- File:Animal biology (IA animalbiology1940wolc).pdf
_(18193346022).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17576342773).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17576583433).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18009618710).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18170727386).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18170734136).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18170915556).jpg){kind=link}
_(18196548345).jpg){kind=link}
_(18197190145).jpg){kind=link}
_(17574286544).jpg){kind=link}
_(17574843824).jpg){kind=link}
_(18009759868).jpg){kind=link}
_(18010452059).jpg){kind=link}
_(18011156649).jpg){kind=link}
_(18011235159).jpg){kind=link}
_(18011392849).jpg){kind=link}
_(18193472952).jpg){kind=link}
_(18197373065).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- There was no renewal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
Kept: no renewal. --rubin16 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)