Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/12/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
copyvio - pretending these are "only geometrical forms" is disingenous at best. Esprit Fugace (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 18:39, 22 Dezember 2020 UTC: CSD F10 (personal photos out of COM:SCOPE --Krdbot 03:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
コモンズに適さないって言われたから。 Korea0001 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Pi.1415926535 at 21:34, 22 Dezember 2020 UTC: No educational purposes, better files available to show pointing out of middle finger --Krdbot 03:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Shakeel21DB (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I remember we recently deleted this file. Re-upload of deleted file, probably under a different name.. E4024 (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- And it should have been a speedy delete because of such. Quakewoody (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
[Non admin closure] It's already deleted. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ talk to me ] 04:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
sexual content 97.83.164.180 12:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
sexual content 97.83.164.180 19:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep, DR vandalism is all this IP does. Just Some Wikipedian (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
[Non-admin closure, Speedy Kept] Mass closure DR added by 97.83.164.180 because of accidental create. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ talk to me ] 04:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
We have a better video of this, file:Fellatio.webm, we can delete this file and redirect it so no uses are lost. Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I realize this video's quality is not that good, but it's a much closer view, so unless there's a better-quality video with a comparably close view, it should be kept. I wouldn't be surprised if there is, but the one you linked isn't it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per previous & comment. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
unused photo of a person of unknown notability, in non-ency shot. Same for user's second upload File:José Galicot.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/119082998@N08
[edit]Flickrwashing. Account has 0 followers 0 following, cannot be trusted and we would need permission from the magazine anyway
- File:Keith-Cover-4.jpg
- File:Keith-Cover-15.jpg
- File:Keith-Cover-1.jpg
- File:Keith-Cover-11.png
- File:Keith-magazine-logo.png
Gbawden (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
unused, out of scope, not even a logo. One of 2 uploads. Pibwl (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
doesn't seem to be in a scope, unused, possible copyright question. Sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
doesn't seem to be in a scope, one of few uploads, no cat. Pibwl (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
scanning a newspaper does not magically make the photo ones own work 2001:8003:AC36:7300:D9BD:50CD:F1D9:E6CC 15:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stanniskok (talk · contribs)
[edit]Five cameras for six photos, unverifiable {{Own}} claim.
- File:Lim Mei Fen.jpg
- File:Emily Lim.jpg
- File:Li Yang in Peking Man.jpg
- File:Mei Yan 1.0.jpg
- File:Gan Mei Yan.jpg
- File:狄妃在2016年獲得第13屆戲炬獎年度最佳女主角.jpg
Mys_721tx (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
spam with an advert inscription, as well as all user's uploads. Pibwl (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete Delete all files by this user. Only promotional content. GeorgHH • talk 22:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —MarcoAurelio 10:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, as described by uploader as "Fictional Map". -- Túrelio (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:VariAres.png
- File:Aabynia Regions.png
- File:Mileyland.jpg
- File:Healing Republic.jpg
- File:Lav 1.png
This also applies to these, from the same uploader:
- File:Melodrama.png
- File:Luckyland.jpg
- File:St Dahlia.jpg
- File:Maderia.jpg
- File:Khodra.png
- File:Nirvania.png
- File:Panonia 1.png
- File:Alania.jpg
- File:Aelysian.jpg
- File:Skandinavisk Kingdom.png
- File:Musiclandia.jpg
- File:Astarte.png
- File:Apollosclogo.png
- File:EESF2 map.jpg
- ... and all of them should be Deleted. IceWelder [✉] 15:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
unused selfie, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Wikimedia Commons is not for personal photos like other social media. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ talk to me ] 04:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The descirption says, that "Legend TV's channel art (used with permission)", but no sign of permission and of notability. One of 2 uploads. Pibwl (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Wikimedia Commons does not accept "used by permission-only" files. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ talk to me ] 04:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
blurred selfie(?), unused, one of 2 uploads. Pibwl (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
On Pinterest Lexy iris (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; not own work as claimed. --Ahmadtalk 03:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marialuzena (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Sergiomeneguelli00.jpg
- File:Romildoposseprefeito00.jpg
- File:Assinatura romildo00.png
- File:Ro00.jpg
- File:Eg00.jpg
- File:Zi00.jpg
- File:Di00.jpg
Ras67 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 02:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps not own work: quality of the image indicates it comes from a screen (taken picture of the screen). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Mhhossein talk 06:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, unidentified person, we have 100s of these here already Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/150477985@N07/
[edit]Flickrwashing, account has 0 following and 0 followers and 3 photos
Gbawden (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/134349952@N02
[edit]Flickrwashing. 0 followers, 0 following, cannot be trusted. Daphne Sounds Expensive is marked (BBC Radio 4 promo image) at source
- File:Daphne Sounds Expensive.jpg
- File:Foster's Edinburgh Comedy Award - 'Best Newcomer' Nominees 2015.jpg
- File:JasonForbes-Orsino.jpg
- File:Jason Forbes (2009).jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Neutral - No opinion on the reliability of that source, I merely created a cropped version of the original photo. Laddo (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:BloodborneRuneLuna.png
- File:Bblnrn.jpg
- File:BbRuneLuna2.jpg
- File:BbRuneLuna.jpg
- File:BbRuneLuna9.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sibleywrites (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
- File:A short story speculative anthology.jpg
- File:My book is about the intersection of consumerism,idenity and race.jpg
Didym (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused selfie. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as out of scope. —MarcoAurelio 10:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused selfie. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as out of scope. —MarcoAurelio 10:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BandungAnimeProject23 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution images, unlikely own works.
··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 03:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING sadly Gbawden (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
F10. Personal photos by non-contributors, no educational purposes. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 13:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Also these files:-
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
No sign of cca on source page 2001:8003:AC36:7300:D9BD:50CD:F1D9:E6CC 15:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Appears to have been withdrawn. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by C.Fred as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not uploader's own work - see watermark at https://www.reviewofreligions.org/15971/khilafat-e-ahmadiyya-a-sign-for-today-a-sign-for-tomorrow/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as nominator's hit is from 2019, whereas image was uploaded to Commons in 2016.-- Túrelio (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- However, I found now https://islamforwest.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/huzur1.jpg, which means prepublication before our upload. --Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Unclear how the uploader owns the rights to University of Waterloo's conceptual artwork. FWIW, the university retains all rights and there's nothing at the project website to indicate the art is freely licensed.
- File:UWaterlooTeamWaterloopPod.jpg
- File:WaterloopCompetitionHyperloopPod.jpg
- File:WaterloopExteriorHyperloopConcept.jpg
- File:WaterloopConceptHyperloopDesignInterior.jpg
- File:Waterloop Interior Hyperloop Concept.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Described as licensed under CC 4.0, but the source is a facebook page with no indication of CC licensing Rosguill (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per nominator. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ talk to me ] 04:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Either Delete or find the right license (if there is one). Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
An OTRS application has been received for her image, but which one? Currently we have two files uploaded (updated) one over the other. As they are different images of the person, probably at least one of them should be deleted. Is one of them the previously deleted file with the same title? Please clear this before legalizing a "double image". Thanks. E4024 (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- E4024, that is still yet to be determined. There is a good likelihood both files have valid licenses, so I would hold off on any deletion. Chico Venancio (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- No problem for me. Then shall we ask for a "split"? --E4024 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Keeping for now so OTRS can get sorted out. --Missvain (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work—appears here credited to Magnolia Pictures. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nonsense. A picture taken of a person belongs to him and can be freely uploaded. Sounds like someone here is on a witch hunt...--Gilabrand (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- This was a good faith nomination, based on the evidence listed above. Please do not accuse me of starting a "witch hunt". It's also not true that images taken of people belong to them in every case. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nonsense. A picture taken of a person belongs to him and can be freely uploaded. Sounds like someone here is on a witch hunt...--Gilabrand (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have written that. It's just that I saw the guy's page was up for deletion without any valid reason and then suddenly a request to delete his picture. I take it back...--Gilabrand (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP, no exif and needs OTRS as prev published. --Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
unused test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per "FBMD", permission is required. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 04:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
No educational value. Also potential copyright issue on the web interface (WhatsApp) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
No educational value. Also potential copyright issue on the web interface (Bing) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Not used in any mainspace pages on Wikimedia (apart from a userspace page): no true educational value. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- It appears this was used on w:User talk:GoingBatty/Archive11#how i can solve this, if you want that then i'll ask to chris brown engineer, perhaps the user took a picture of the notice that we usually find on top of many wiki articles, and used that screenshot for obtaining help (this was better if the user consulted at Wikipedia's Help Desk or Teahouse). Nevertheless, this has been answered, and we no longer need this file as COM:NOTUSED. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
No educational value. Also potential copyright issue on the web interface (appears to be from YouTube) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Self-nominating here. This was posted wayyy back then, when I just randomly upload files to Commons. This poster is not licensed under any open licenses, it's copyrighted. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrearafaella (talk · contribs)
[edit]Seems to be professional photos, so very unlikely to be own work. Evidence of permission from the photographer must be sent to the OTRS.
pandakekok9 12:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrearafaella (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploader is the subject depicted in these photos. Requires COM:OTRS permission from the original photographer.
ƏXPLICIT 11:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 00:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Self-nominating here. This was posted wayyy back then, when I just randomly upload files to Commons. This poster is not licensed under any open licenses, it's copyrighted. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Self-nominating here. This was posted wayyy back then, when I just randomly upload files to Commons. This poster is not licensed under any open licenses, it's copyrighted. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Logo of an Australia-based company. Per COM:TOO Australia, the country's threshold of originality is incredibly low.
ƏXPLICIT 12:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, unused. Pibwl (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
doesn't seem to be in a scope, unused, one of few uploads. Pibwl (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete This is gibberish (SDG1). E4024 (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
unused test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Terrible quality, no EDUSE Gbawden (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
bad unusable quality unused photo of a person, doubtful own work. Pibwl (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Found here before upload - https://metalmagazine.eu/en/post/article/levis-pride-2020 - no exif - unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - apparently some promotional spam, along with other two upload File:Joyfulcolors banner background.jpg, File:Joyfulcolors grey banner background.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Do any of these photos help the project? Or do they simply help an SEO company build it's brand? Quakewoody (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:02, 29 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) 16:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and OTRS permission may be needed, too. --Ahmadtalk 22:28, 10 May 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) 16:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Ambient Air Quality Monitoring - Impetus Complexities Challenges and Solutions Revisited.pdf
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright vio https://www.listal.com/viewimage/16455608 BlinxTheKitty (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete support It seems.. seems the user is not familiar with copyright laws. Lexy iris (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Scope and possible copyright vio BlinxTheKitty (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Possible copy of 2011 artwork (See:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Constance of Brittany.jpg for more information.) ชาวไทย (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as to the previous deletion discussions linked above. Appart from that, we do not need modern phantasy illustrations to illustrate historic persons. This is just not done anymore today. --Wuselig (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete; looks like more of this: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Blanca_II_de_Navarra.jpg. Eric talk 02:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The so called author admitted in his talk page (hebrew) that he isn't the creator of the photo Ronshir (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The so called author admitted in his talk page (hebrew) that he isn't the creator of the photo Ronshir (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The so called author admitted in his talk page (hebrew) that he isn't the creator of the photo Ronshir (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Linguist111 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as nominator didn't provide any evidence.-- Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Same image is available at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2020/07/21/18835214.php. --Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Is it standard to delete images if they are also available elsewhere on the web? It seems quite plausible that the uploader put it here and there, or that the uploader put their own work here and a different person put it there. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, no EXIF data, all previous uploads deleted as copyvio.Same photo can be found available online on several sources. Smooth O (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
unused book cover of unknown notability, apart from possible copyright issues. Pibwl (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
unused, out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused photo, unidentified person, single upload. Smooth O (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
the uploader, given as the author, is not the author of original artwork. Pibwl (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
unused, apparently autopromotional spam logo. Pibwl (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Selfpromotion Lotje (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This file from https://amp.baogiaothong.vn/cac-tan-bo-truong-noi-gi-khi-nham-chuc-d145426.html by Dân trí, and also unfree Lee Gok Da (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
personal use and useless Hoseina051311 (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
KeepHe has an article in Persian Wikipedia. Lexy iris (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Delete its on CSD. Lexy iris (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
personal use and useless Hoseina051311 (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
KeepHe has an article in Persian Wikipedia. Lexy iris (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Delete its on CSD. Lexy iris (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Josy masse La diva guyanaise Josy Masse s'est éteinte aujourd'hui à l'âge de 82 ans. Née à Saint-Georges-de-l'Oyapock.jpg
[edit]LP cover, doubtful copyright. Pibwl (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
clearly not own work, one of many by this user under three accounts Praxidicae (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Theatre poster or something similar - no sign of free licence on given page, which sells them. Pibwl (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio - low res, no EXIF, "intimate" vantage of notable person, appears to be from this set. Duck/COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Pretty clearly Flickrwashing, since it's a cropped and lower resolution version of the much larger version at https://nevadanewsandviews.com/e-interview-with-assemblywoman-michele-fiore/ specifically this one dated 2014.
Dude. If you're associated with Ms. Fiore, get her to release an image - put an image someone who worked for her took on her web page or Twitter with a statement like "Photo by Jane Smith, my intern, February 31, 2020, released under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", then we can upload that; surely she has employees who will take a photo of her when needed. Or if she doesn't even have interns, get one of her friends to do it, then the friend can release it similarly. If she doesn't even have friends, she can take a selfie and release that. If you're a fan of hers, you can go to a press conference of hers, and take a photo of her, and upload that; surely she holds press conferences, and surely you have a camera on your phone. (Yeah, I know, fewer press conferences nowadays; if she isn't one of the "COVID is just a liberal plot" brigade, that might have to wait a few months, but you had all this time since 2014, and there will be press conferences next year.) There are so many options. But stop stealing other people's photos. OK? GRuban (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asian Bhadbhabie (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep and restore, no reason given. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe out of scope Lexy iris (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also is request by uploader. DMacks (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete by courtesy, uploader's request, no EDUSE. --Achim (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The copyright owner is probably someone else. The same photo is available in lower resolution elsewhere on the internet. I suggest it will be deleted. [1] [2] Uncitoyen (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope. Lexy iris (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope? Lexy iris (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence of authorization, or an OTRS ticket Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This is offensive to the Religion of Islam because the country of Saudi Arabia holds the two holy sites of Islam. D4rkeRR9 (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, grow up. This is obviously a speedy keep. Fry1989 eh? 20:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:NOTCENSORED; also noting the file is in COM:SCOPE because it’s being used by three sister projects.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
As detected, the rays are faked (i.e., have been added using Photoshop), this makes any educational value close to zero. A.Savin 22:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- File in use. Not out of COM:SCOPE. Should not be deleted just because it is photoshoped. Don't use in article, add tags like this photo isn't real or something. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Promo photo, published online on multiple sources prior upload date. No original author or permission. Smooth O (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I took this picture myself and it was not published elsewhere. Do you really think a promo photo would have the Wikipedia logo in it? FozzTexx (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- It can be found published here prior upload date. But anyhow, to be honest i haven't notice Wikipedia logo on it, so
I withdraw my nomination. --Smooth O (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- It can be found published here prior upload date. But anyhow, to be honest i haven't notice Wikipedia logo on it, so
Kept: Nomination was withdrawn. --Mike Peel (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
File:Royal family of Great Britain tour for the Captain Cook Bi-Centenary Celebrations visit to the Royal Easter Show, Sydney Showground, 30 Mar 1970 - photographer Maurie Wilmott (7300134706).jpg
[edit]This item was loaded from the SLNSW Flickr sites but it is still in copyright Eothan (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Question Could {{PD-AustraliaGov}} applied. If yes, then the copyright is going to be expired on 1 January 2021. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-AustraliaGov}} applied as suggested. Ruthven (msg) 10:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Building in construction, not under copyright. Ruthven (msg) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: building under construction. No copyrightable work (yet). Besides, it is below ToO in Italy. Ruthven (msg) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: building under construction. Not the crate, nor the building is copyrightable. Ruthven (msg) 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in italy 151.42.243.44 12:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: the building is below ToO, thus not protected. Ruthven (msg) 14:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment It is no way to say a completed building is below COM:TOO Italy--A1Cafel (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: again: building is below ToO (it's a tower), which is reinforced by the ministry, as the Allianz tower is not considred of particular artistic/creative interest by the MiBAC (the Ministry). See the list of individual decrees. Ruthven (msg) 20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect license and source information. This file was copied from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVcQqEJBNGQ and there is no mention about the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license in the video and its description. I think it may be copyvio. T128-2 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with this request.--TKsdik8900 (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I believe this image is subject to SD (Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#File F1).--Araisyohei (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, source YouTube video does not have CC-BY licensing. JGHowes talk 17:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not an "edict of government". It is a photograph of a person, and there is no indication that it is in the public domain because it published by a state (not a federal) agency in the United States. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree that this is a copyvio and not part of the public domain. TJMSmith (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
no use and useless Hoseina051311 (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free. --Hanooz 16:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Изображение использовалось на "странице участника". Cenys (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Изображение использовалось на "странице участника". Cenys (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope Picture on sign. มองโกเลีย๔๔ 09:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The traffic sign will not be repeated with the svg file and the traffic sign is a png. File or a gif file, which is not the clearest image, so I have to delete the traffic sign that is wrong from that country's standard. Please allow everyone with respect.Svg file 
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! มองโกเลีย๔๔ 16:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - we do not generally delete pre-existing raster files for this reason. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The traffic sign will not be repeated with the svg file and the traffic sign is a png. File or a gif file, which is not the clearest image, so I have to delete the traffic sign that is wrong from that country's standard. Please allow everyone with respect.Svg file Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Mongolia44 00:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the previous 2 DRs resulting in 'keep'. No valid reason stated for deletion. —MarcoAurelio 10:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The traffic sign will not be repeated with the svg file and the traffic sign is a png. File or a gif file, which is not the clearest image, so I have to delete the traffic sign that is wrong from that country's standard. Please allow everyone with respect.Svg file 
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Mongolia44 00:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand the DR rationale. The file is unused though, but it's not identical to File:Thailand road sign น-9.svg. —MarcoAurelio 10:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear all, we would like to remove the traffic sign images that do not meet the standards of DOH Standard to prevent the complexity of the images and the use of images that are not in accordance with the government's specified format. Mongolia44 06:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The traffic sign will not be repeated with the svg file and the traffic sign is a png. File or a gif file, which is not the clearest image, so I have to delete the traffic sign that is wrong from that country's standard. Please allow everyone with respect.Svg file 
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Mongolia44 00:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
A vector file of traffic signs has been replaced.This removal reorganized the traffic signs. Mongolia44 00:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Dear all, we would like to remove the traffic sign images that do not meet the standards of DOH Standard to prevent the complexity of the images and the use of images that are not in accordance with the government's specified format. Mongolia44 06:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirected image not in use anymore because SVG version exists 185.209.238.168 00:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: we usually don't delete PNG/SVG duplicates. --rubin16 (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Redirection not used. File:Fußball-Landesliga Westfalen, Logo.png should stay. Nordat (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement, no real source is mentioned DZwarrior1 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- whatever "no real source is mentioned" means, the threshold of originality in Italy is quite high, and frankly I don't think that a bunch of plain lines, circles and letters could be above it --Vale93b (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: seems to be trivial enough. --rubin16 (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(4694818437).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![165 File:Queen Elizabeth "walkabout" on arriving at Sydney Town Hall for a civic reception during the tour for the Captain Cook Bi-Centenary Celebrations, 21 Apr 1970 - photographer Maurie Wilmott (7300142178).jpg](#File:Queen_Elizabeth_"walkabout"_on_arriving_at_Sydney_Town_Hall_for_a_civic_reception_during_the_tour_for_the_Captain_Cook_Bi-Centenary_Celebrations,_21_Apr_1970_-_photographer_Maurie_Wilmott_(7300142178).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
-2020-12-27T04:44:00.000Z-File:El_Polimata_singer_dominican.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(4694818437).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4694818437).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(4694818437).jpg){kind=link}
_(4694818437).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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){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&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I initially nominated this image for speedy deletion, based on the left footer ("Copyright © 2018 Paul Maric"). The uploader pointed out that on the right footer, there's a CC-Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license (2018 Web Archive version). But User:Dylsss pointed out on my talk page that non-commercial/non-derivative licenses are also not accepted. Harryboyles (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi User:Dylsss and User:Harryboyles. This image also carries the same Creative Commons license as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paul-Maric-Motoring-Journalist.jpg . The owner's website (https://paulmaric.com) was updated to include a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Southoftheyarra (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: can't find it on site right now but tineye shows it was there. The site changed licensed now. --rubin16 (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I initially nominated this image for speedy deletion, based on the left footer ("Copyright © 2020 Paul Maric"). The uploader pointed out that on the right footer, there's a CC-Attribution-NonCommercial license (http://paulmaric.com/). But User:Dylsss pointed out on my talk page that non-commercial/non-derivative licenses are also not accepted. Harryboyles (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- On my talk page, Southoftheyarra made the following comment:
Thanks for the explanation. I reached out to the user on social media. They explained that their website was updated recently and the wrong Creative Commons license was listed on the page. He explained that it has now been updated to correctly reflect an international license. I've since refreshed their page and the update is reflected in the footer.
It is now listed as Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- I've visited https://paulmaric.com/ and confirmed that a CC-BY-4.0 license is now displayed. I've updated the license on the file description page, and request that this deletion request be withdrawn. Harryboyles (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: site is correctly licensed now. --rubin16 (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Queen Elizabeth welcomed on arrival at Kingsford-Smith Airport for the Captain Cook Bi-Centenary Celebrations tour by Prime Minister John Gorton, Sydney, 21 April 1970 - photographer Maurie Wilmott (7300137232).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This item was loaded from the SLNSW Flickr sites but it is still in copyright Eothan (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Question Could {{PD-AustraliaGov}} applied. If yes, then the copyright is going to be expired on 1 January 2021. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Just added PD-Australia, but looking again at the details, this seems to be a agency photographer, probably for commercial news at the time. Not sure there's any 'Commonwealth' related rationale here. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
no use and useless Hoseina051311 (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
porque lo subí por error Carol Skullart (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
porque lo subí por error Carol Skullart (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - amateur sketch; not an art work. Not used either. --E4024 (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
File:The saints in art, with their attributes and symbols alphabetically arranged (IA saintsinartwitht00tabo 0).pdf
[edit]Principal author is "Tabor, Margaret Emma", who died 1954 according to the Penn Online Books page, this is not necessarily PD in the UK. The artwork in the relevant category looks to be PD-art but would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis and with the book text stripped from the infoboxes. Book itself can be undeleted in 2025? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 17:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
My mistake, artist died in 1953 and will only be in PD in 2024. Ayack (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Porque lo subí por error Carol Skullart (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - amateur sketch; not an art work. Not used either. --E4024 (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Porque lo subí por error Carol Skullart (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - amateur sketch; not an art work. Not used either. --E4024 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Porque lo subí por error Carol Skullart (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - amateur sketch; not an art work. Not used either. --E4024 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Porque lo subí por error Carol Skullart (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - amateur sketch; not an art work. Not used either. --E4024 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Porque lo subí por error Carol Skullart (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - amateur sketch; not an art work. Not used either. --E4024 (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Porque lo subí por error Carol Skullart (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - amateur sketch; not an art work. Not used either. --E4024 (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Porque lo subí por error Carol Skullart (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - amateur sketch; not an art work. Not used either. --E4024 (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Pornographic Content NairobiPapel (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, poor quality, redundant and therefore out of scope file. AshFriday (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- AshFriday, maybe you’re used to better quality porn (more and better camera angles, better lighting and sound, the guy a bit more groomed and athletic, longer footage, and some story plot, maybe?), but the goal here is educational, not recreational. There are other websites for good quality porn people can find when needed (so I heard!); in Commons we rather have this kind of media — unscripted, short, single-topic — as it is better suited to illustrate sexology topics in the context of encyclopedic reuse. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Per Tuválkin. We have only a few videos in the relevant category. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
sexual content 97.83.164.180 20:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid reason for deletion.Just Some Wikipedian (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism, IP blocked. --Achim (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
sexual content 97.83.164.180 19:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep and block this IP again, per previous DR. Every time they discover their block has expired, they spam "sexual content" DRs on every human sexuality image they can find until someone blocks them again. Just Some Wikipedian (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
[Non-admin closure, Speedy Kept] Mass closure DR added by 97.83.164.180 because of accidental create. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ talk to me ] 04:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
This is porn 194.233.96.65 06:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept. The fact that it is porn is not a reason to delete it. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Own work unlikely and thus, badly-licensed as well. Creator seems to be the National University of Singapore with no evidence of permission. —MarcoAurelio 20:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT. No foreseeable COM:EDUSE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Also by the same uploader:
- File:09643jfCaloocan City Abad Santos Rizal Avenue Tondo Manilafvf 08.JPG
- File:09643jfCaloocan City Abad Santos Rizal Avenue Tondo Manilafvf 09.JPG
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Functus officio : a) the picture is very informative on the question of what is the street or road name; there re 192 Category:Streets in Manila - most if not all I created and did walk around; these photos tell Commons that the site is Category:Rizal Avenue Extension corner 5th Avenue West and C-3 Road - Category:Circumferential Road 3 East (Grace Park, Rizal Avenue Extension, Caloocan City section) C-3 Road Official Sign 5th Avenue COM:EDUSE "The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." without these 2 photos and the ones cited above - there is no way one can Name the correct Category; b) even before, I was repeatedly accused of guessing the name of streets or barangays - hence, the official Category of Barangays and Streets were taken by me from these address signs of business stores or shops; I would like to inform Commons editors that Philippine street signs are often absent or are not made to contain boundaries of Barangays or streets; for these 2 reasons, the nominated photos already "having accomplished the purposes for which it was created" - Functus officio then they may be deleted; Skyway Stage 3 cloudy photo; maraming salamat po sa inyong paggamit ng aking larawan; at datapwat kahit mahina ako sa pag Ta Tagalog, nais kong maging tulad sa isang walis na matapos linisin ang dumi,lalo na sa aking pinanggalingang Padre Faura Dioses, ako sana ay makalimutan na - I’m just a broom in the hands of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin used me as a broom to remove the dust. When the work is done, the broom is put behind the door again. As the Mystic's foundations, imprisonment, torture and death I have donated all my photos and each description contains "and in addition, they and all or anybody need not cite or mention my name in the photos they take from Wikimedia Commons which I donated absolutely"; in my most difficult moment, I was written on front pages - Sumpa ng mga duwende: SC justices mamalasin, mamamatay - Ni Grace Dela Cruz November 4, 2006 - 12:00am Pilipino Star Ngayon The Philippine Star ; I was devastated that very day and despite the fact that I lost my job, Br. 73 RTC Golden Throne, Malabon, gavel and Blue Robes, still one this is leftover to me 3 Duendes; San Juan, San Luis Category:San Juan, San Luis, Pampanga; Sumpa at Karma; respectfully submitted and I have No Objection to the deletion Wala po akong tulol Burahin ang larawan Gumagalang and Yours Sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet upload. No CC-BY-SA-4.0 and indicated source is not the original where the work can be found. Might be kept if properly attributed and licensed. —MarcoAurelio 18:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sockpuppet upload with false licensing claims and bogus source information, which is not the original where the work can be found. Logo might not be simpler enough to be kept either. —MarcoAurelio 18:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Possible copyright infringement. Quasi-same image found at https://thenews.org/2020/11/12/murray-state-alumni-signs-record-deal/ (different size, cropped and zoomed). COM:PRP applies. —MarcoAurelio 20:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Info Stated authorship of the photograph in the thenews.org site mentions Nick Erickson as author; thenews.org copyright is "all rights reserved" and there's no evidence that uploader is Mr Erickson. —MarcoAurelio 20:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
© ESA, there is no proof that the image was originally licensed under a free licence. Can ESA retreat the CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO license due to a mistake? Exists a tool like {{Flickrreview}} for ESA media? Ras67 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- it was CC-BY-SA at publish time but not anymore, so it was probably a mistake in the first place. As bot maintainer I agree the picture should be deleted. vip (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep because free licenses cannot be revoked. The file was indeed under CC-by-SA 3.0 IGO when it was uploaded. [3] Ixfd64 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment But the web.archive is our sole proof. ESA can let delete this subsequently and then we stand there dumbstruck! Is the non revocation, especially on the IGO license, judicial approved? We have to protect our subsequent users. See my opinion also here. --Ras67 (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: irrevocably licensed. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Queen Elizabeth "walkabout" on arriving at Sydney Town Hall for a civic reception during the tour for the Captain Cook Bi-Centenary Celebrations, 21 Apr 1970 - photographer Maurie Wilmott (7300142178).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This item is still in copyright and was loaded from the SLNSW Flickr where it was credited as being public Eothan (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Question Could {{PD-AustraliaGov}} applied. If yes, then the copyright is going to be expired on 1 January 2021. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, until someone can prove otherwise. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Princess Anne riding in Centennial Park during the Royal Tour for the Captain Cook Bi-Centenary Celebrations, Sydney, 30 March 1970 - photographer Maurie Wilmott (7300135966).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This item was loaded from the SLNSW Flickr sites but it is still in copyright Eothan (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Question Could {{PD-AustraliaGov}} applied. If yes, then the copyright is going to be expired on 1 January 2021. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- No {{PD-AustraliaGov}} does not apply in this case. Eothan (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, until someone can prove otherwise. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Royal family with Governor Sir Roden Cutler at an evening reception at Government House, Sydney during their tour for the Captain Cook Bi-Centenary Celebrations, 21 April 1970 - photographer Maurie Wilmott (7300142172).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This item was loaded from the SLNSW Flickr sites but it is still in copyright Eothan (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Question Could {{PD-AustraliaGov}} applied. If yes, then the copyright is going to be expired on 1 January 2021. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, until someone can prove otherwise. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It is de facto double of File:Flag of Poland (with coat of arms).svg that uses incorrect coat of arms. File usage is limited to users' and users' talk pages and can be simply replaced. Aʀvєδuι + 08:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Yup, I agree. --Wanted (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Request of own uploader because exist a better previous version of the same photo Ecummenic (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: redundant to File:Pietro Antonio Rotari - Diana, goddess of the hunt, leaning against a tree.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by RandomUserGuy1738 as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:Thomas Dewey.jpg
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates.-- Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: incomparable file formats. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by RandomUserGuy1738 as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:President Lyndon Baines Johnson and Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago.jpg
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates.-- Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: incomparable file formats. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by RandomUserGuy1738 as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:President Lyndon Baines Johnson and Mayor John Lindsay of New York City.jpg
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates.-- Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: incomparable file formats. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by TommyG as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:Bone_connective_tissue.jpg
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates.-- Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comrades, I need the zoomed in "duplicate" for a wikimedia slovenian article. The zoomed out version is not what I need. Thus I came to upload the bone as well.
- wikisource*
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesleyCommunist (talk • contribs)
- @LesleyCommunist: I have recreated the crop in a version derived from the original file at File:Bone connective tissue (cropped).jpg. Would this be usable for you? This version is slightly larger than the version from en.lifeder.com. TommyG (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as duplicate of File:Bone connective tissue (cropped).jpg. All usage has been replaced. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Jonidel Mendoza. Emanas entre la multitud y te cuelas en el translúcido silencio, 2013.jpg
[edit]
No proof, that the uploader is the artist. Same for File:Jonidel Mendoza. Intercepciones del reflejo II, 2011 .jpg and File:Patricia Van Dalen. "Contingencias modulares", 2012.jpg by the other artist. Pibwl (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs VRT ticket. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Art work of Leni Smoragdova {$M} (w:ru:Лени Сморагдова). Required OTRS permission. 176.59.51.25 10:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
unused screenshoot, no real educational use. Remaining uploads out are out of scope as well: illegible scheme File:Gestion de Incidentes Wikipedia.JPG, other unused sofware screenshoot File:Captura jaspersoft.JPG and some sofware box File:Jssbox big.png, clearly not an uplader's work. Pibwl (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Is geen originele foto. Ook te zien op https://www.backstage.com/u/ann-sophie-vanlommel/ en https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10711812/ Akadunzio (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks like self-promotion to me. Lotje (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
File:ESA astronaut Matthias Maurer and NASA astronaut Raja Chari during space food tasting in Russia ESA22249498.jpeg
[edit]
© ESA/NASA, there is no proof that the image was originally licensed under a free licence. Can ESA retreat the CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO license due to a mistake? Exists a tool like {{Flickrreview}} for ESA media? Ras67 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- it was CC-BY-SA at publish time but not anymore, so it was probably a mistake in the first place. As bot maintainer I agree the picture should be deleted. vip (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Marked as not meeting threshold of originality, but logo consists of more than simple shapes. The fact it has a distinctive lion head shape means that it doesn't meet this criteria, and is therefore copyrighted Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Please delete it as soon as possible as per the above reasons. A Simple Human (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- A Simple Human, please do not overwrite images, see COM:OVERWRITE. --Achim (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @A Simple Human,@Joseph2302 I would suggest that only its text logo of 'LPL T20' without lion should be uploaded just like File:PSL.svg & File:SLPL.svg because they are only text excerpts from its orignal logos. Therefore, this image should be uploaded as a new file and this file page should be redirected to a newly uploaded file or deleted so that it may comply for commons usage and the pages that are currently using this file may not loss it eventually and the original logo can be fairly used in its respective article.Thank You.59.103.122.87 09:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. But there should be at least 2 logos. The text can be used everywhere. But the lion one is the actual logo of the league so it should be in the main tournament article. A Simple Human (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @A Simple Human That's what I am talking about use orignal logo fairly in its main article and Keep only its text excerpt logo of LPL T20 on Commons.59.103.122.87 10:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @A Simple Human That's what I am talking about use orignal logo fairly in its main article and
- Delete per nom and A Simple Human. I think a "text excerpt logo of LPL T20" would exceed COM:TOO in Sri Lanka, as en:Lankan Premier League is Sri Lankan. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: without question above TOO. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
obsolete FabioS783 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
obsolete FabioS783 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
fictionnal, not in use, out of com:scope 80.215.178.92 20:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Postal stamps from Czechoslovakia are not in public domain (per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Czechoslovakia#Stamps). Designer and engraver of this stamp Karel Seizinger died in 1978 (https://www.infofila.cz/karel-seizinger-r-0-c-76). Harold (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be pd in country of origin (Russia) PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps of Czechoslovakia
[edit]Czechoslovak postal stamps are copyrighted per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Czechoslovakia#Stamps. Authors of these stamps died after 1950, therefore these stamps are not in public domain.
- File:Briefmarke Ceskoslovensko Tschechoslowakei PD um 1940.jpg - year: 1928, designer: Jindřich Vlček (died in 1968 [4]), engraver: unknown
- File:Ceskoslovensko1968hradcany1kcs.jpg - year: 1968, designer: Karel Vodák (died in 2000 [5]), engraver: Ladislav Jirka (died in 1986 [6]), author of the original stamp: en:Alfons Mucha (died in 1939)
- File:EXPO`70 OSAKA.jpg - year: 1970, designer: Karel Vodák (died in 2000 [7]), engraver: Josef Herčík (died in 1999 [8]), author of the original painting: F. K. Wolf (died in 1836 [9])
- File:Ján Botto (1829-1881).jpg - year: 1989, designer: en:Albín Brunovský (died in 1997), engraver: Martin Činovský (probably still alive [10])
- File:MRACEK ZNAMKA 01.jpg - year: 1949, designer: Kamil Lhoták (died in 1980 [11]), engraver: Jan Mráček (died in 1987 [12])
- File:MRACEK ZNAMKA 02.jpg - year: 1949, designer: Karel Svolinský (died in 1986 [13]), engraver: Jan Mráček (died in 1987 [14])
- File:MRACEK ZNAMKA 04.jpg - year: 1948, designer: Karel Svolinský (died in 1986 [15]), engraver: Jan Mráček (died in 1987 [16])
- File:MRACEK ZNAMKA 05.jpg - year: 1985, designer: unknown, engraver: Jan Mráček (died in 1987 [17]), author of the original painting: Jozef Ginovský (died in 1851 [18] or 1857 (on the stamp))
- File:Pohled z cs.pavilonu na Montreal.jpg - year: 1967, designer: Karel Vodák (died in 2000 [19]), engraver: Josef Herčík (died in 1999 [20])
- File:Postovní znamka legionari.jpg - year: 1938, designer: Jindřich Vlček (died in 1968 [21]), engraver: Bohumil Heinz (died in 1940 [22])
- File:Znamka.jpg - year: 1981, designer: Cyril Bouda (died in 1984 [23]), engraver: Ladislav Jirka (died in 1986 [24])
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Harold (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC) authors added --Harold (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for now there is no evidence given the authors died after 1950 as dates of death are not shown by the nominator nor on the individual stamp pages. In fact the designers are not even mentioned, except for one. Also, the uploaders claims to be the author, which is clearly false.
- This stamp File:Briefmarke Ceskoslovensko Tschechoslowakei PD um 1940.jpg design was first issued in 1928 so a new colour does not make a new copyright. The author is not mentioned.
- This stamp's images File:Ceskoslovensko1968hradcany1kcs.jpg were designed by Alphonse Mucha who died in 1939 so that element is out of copyright and the additional text is COM:TOO to be copyrightable. This is clearly in the public domain.
- Specific detail are required to deal with this nomination properly. Ww2censor (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have checked authors of all these stamps before I created DR, but I agree more details are needed here. --Harold (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Ww2censor that theese 2 stamps are OK. --Albert Horáček (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- File:Ceskoslovensko1968hradcany1kcs.jpg probably yes, but File:Briefmarke Ceskoslovensko Tschechoslowakei PD um 1940.jpg? Jindřich Vlček, the designer of original stamp from 1928, died in 1968 [25], so if it doesn't meet {{PD-shape}} (or something like that), it would be copyrighted until 2038. --Harold (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you. File:Briefmarke Ceskoslovensko Tschechoslowakei PD um 1940.jpg is this stamp by "J. Vlček", so this file should be deleted. --Albert Horáček (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- File:Ceskoslovensko1968hradcany1kcs.jpg probably yes, but File:Briefmarke Ceskoslovensko Tschechoslowakei PD um 1940.jpg? Jindřich Vlček, the designer of original stamp from 1928, died in 1968 [25], so if it doesn't meet {{PD-shape}} (or something like that), it would be copyrighted until 2038. --Harold (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - all designes are late enough so that they cannot be free of the URAA. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Likely Copyright Vio, cannot find proof of CC protection on such branding BlinxTheKitty (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This being the logo of a South Korean band, it appears to be below COM:TOO South Korea which allows File:EvisuLogo.svg which IMO is at a similar level of originality. If kept it should be tagged {{PD-simple}}/textlogo/etc. -M.nelson (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: kept as PD-textlogo. --rubin16 (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps of the Czech Republic
[edit]Copyrighted postal stamps from the Czech Republic per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Czech Republic#Stamps. File:MRACEK ZNAMKA 06.jpg is reprinted Czechoslovakia stamp from 1960 and the original is also copyrighted per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Czechoslovakia#Stamps.
- File:Azerbaijani carpet of Kasim Ushak on the Czech post stamp.jpg
- File:Carpet of Chelebird (Chelebi) on the Czech post stamp.jpg
- File:Czech stamp 2000 m259.jpg
- File:MRACEK ZNAMKA 06.jpg
_on_the_Czech_post_stamp.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Harold (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- No opinion on the other three, but File:Czech stamp 2000 m259.jpg is just text, and unoriginal and uncopyrightable text at that. How does it meet COM:TOO Czech Republic? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was not sure about this one, but I have decided to include it to the deletion request. It's a text mainly however a designer and an engraver could create author's work. --Harold (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: one kept as trivial, others deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Original Hitles postal stamps are copyrighted (per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Stamps). Josef Sejpka, designer of this stamp, died in 1952 (https://cs.isabart.org/person/5712), and Jaroslav Goldschmied, engraver, in 1977 (https://www.kf0015.cz/jaroslav-goldschmied/).
- File:BuM1945BilaLhotaovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Blatnaovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Bojkoviceovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Brnoovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Domazliceovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Frydekovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Horazdoviceovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Kunoviceovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Olomoucovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Plzen2ovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Plzenovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Praha2ovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Prahaovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Prostejovovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Prusinoviceovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945RicanyuPrahyovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945SvatyKopecekovpt.jpg
- File:BuM1945Tichaovpt.jpg
Harold (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for now Harold as previously mentioned, if you are going to start nominating such German stamps for deletion, it would be better to complete the stalled process of dealing with ALL the German stamps showing the template {{PD German stamps warning}} instead of just a few. There are around 8,000 stamps in that warning category and all the above nominated stamps, except 1, are within the category Category:German stamps review. You may want to refer to all the other links on this page Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review before proceeding because nothing has been done for several years despite the 2012 Berlin court decision that German stamps are generally not in the public domain as we had claimed. Perhaps we need to revive this whole issue and deal with it once and for all. Though as previously we will need more hand on deck to properly finish it. Ww2censor (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. If you apply German copyright rules, these stamps are in the public domain ({{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}) because the designer is not mentioned on the stamps and these were published more than 70 years ago. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: it seems that they could be free in Germany per {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} but not free in the US due to URAA as they became free in 2015 (1945+70), not being free as at 1996. --rubin16 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Postal stamps from Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia within German Empire Reich are copyrighted per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Stamps. Authors of all these stamps died after 1950, therefore these stamps are not in public domain.
- File:Bezruc-dopis-obalka.jpg - designer: cs:Jan C. Vondrouš (died in 1970), engraver: Bohumil Heinz (died in 1940 [26])
- File:Briefmarke Böhmen und Mähren um 1940 PD.JPG - designer: cs:Jan C. Vondrouš (died in 1970), engraver: Bohumil Heinz (died in 1940 [27])
- File:Deutsches Reich - Boehmen und Maehren.jpg - designer: Alois Langenberger (died in 1962 [28]), engraver: unknown
- File:Deutsches Reich - Böhmen und Mähren.jpg - designer: Josef Sejpka (died in 1952 [29]), engraver: Jaroslav Goldschmied (died in 1977 [30])
- File:Heydrichblock.jpg - designer: F. Rotter (???), engraver: unknown
- File:Heydrichmarke.jpg - designer: F. Rotter (???), engraver: unknown
- sculptur: Franz Rotter (died in 1989) -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- File:Protektorat znamky.jpg - various authors
- File:Stamp of Bohemia and Moravia 1939.jpg - designer: cs:Jan C. Vondrouš (died in 1970), engraver: Bohumil Heinz (died in 1940 [35])
- File:StampBohemiaAndMoravia1943Michel126.jpg - designer and engraver: Jindřich Schmidt (died in 1984 [36])
- File:Theresienstadt-Propagandablock.jpg - designer and engraver: Bedřich Fojtášek (died in 1990 [37])
Harold (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC) + authors (source: Katalog Protektorát Čechy a Morava, Slovenský štát, Sudety [38]) --Harold (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if it makes a difference in the legal circumstances, but the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia existed from 1939 to 1945 during the Nazi regime in Germany, after Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, it was never part of the German Empire, which ended in 1918 when Kaiser Wilhelm stepped down near the end of World War I. The Protectorate was made an official part of Germany -- which may make a difference as far as the copyright ruling is concerned -- but was (as the name implies) "protected" by the Nazi regime. Until these issues are cleared up, Keep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, German Reich is the proper name in English. Thanks. :-) The Protectorate was an official part of the German Reich and German stamps are copyrighted per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Stamps. If we don't know whether there are any special copyright rules about works from the Protectorate, I think these stamps should be deleted (COM:PRP). --Harold (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, the Protectorate was not a part of the Greater German Reich, any more than the General Government was, It was certainly under German control, but it was not a part of the country itself: the concept itself is ludicrous, how can a land area one is protecting be a part of one's country? Only external lands can be a "protectorate". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think you are right. As a Czech I'm insterested in Czech history. I don't know much about the General Government and its status, but as far as I know, the Protectorate was integral part of German Reich. In my opinion, there is a general consensus among Czech historicians about this fact. I have checked some Czech books by historicians and historicians of law, such as Československá a česká zahraniční politika: minulost a současnost (ISBN 978-80-87212-38-7, page 158, original in Czech: Protektorát neměl znaky státní existence (území patřilo Velkoněmecké říši) a formální byla i vnitřní autonomie včetně vlastní správy...; my translation: The Protectorate had not attributes of existence of state (its territory belongs to Greater German Reich) and inner autonomy was formal too, including its own administration...), Pod ochranou hákového kříže: nacistický okupační režim v českých zemích 1939-1945 (ISBN 978-80-87284-20-9, page 19, original in Czech: Následujícími články výnosu byl uz obsazených území zřízen Protektorát Čechy a Morava jako součást Velkoněmecké říše.; my translation: The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was created from occupied territories as a part of Greater German Reich, according to the articles of following regulation...), Státoprávní uspořádání Protektorátu Čechy a Morava (1939-1945) (ISBN 978-80-7380-419-0, page 22, original in Czech: Hitlerovým Výnosem byl z obsazených území zřízen Protektorát Čechy a Morava jako součást Velkoněmecké říše.; my translation: The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was created by Hitler's regulation from occupied territories as a part of Greater German Reich.) or Protektorát a osud českého odboje (ISBN 80-86432-56-4, page 54, original in Czech: Ve vlastním textu [Výnosu] byly Čechy a Morava společně prohlášeny autonomní součástí Říše.; my translation: In the text [of the Regulation], Bohemia and Moravia was collectively declared as autonomous part of the Reich.). Also see original Czechoslovak/Protectorate Collection of laws and regulations, regulation No. 75/1939 Erlaß des Führers und Reichskanzlers über das Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren vom 16. März 1939 / Výnos Vůdce a říšského kancléře ze dne 16. března 1939 o Protektorátu Čechy a Morava: article 1, section 1 (in Czech): Části bývalé Česko-Slovenské republiky, obsazené v březnu 1939 německými oddíly, náleží od nynějška k území Velkoněmecké říše a vstupují jako "Protektorát Čechy a Morava" pod její ochranu.; my translation: Parts of former Czecho-Slovak Republic, which was taken by German troops in March 1939, belongs to the territory of Greater German Reich from now and enter under its protection as the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia". I think it's obvious that the "protection" was within German Reich and the name "Protectorate" was just a camouflage for formally partially-autonomous region inside borders of nazi empire. --Harold (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if it makes a difference in the legal circumstances, but the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia existed from 1939 to 1945 during the Nazi regime in Germany, after Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, it was never part of the German Empire, which ended in 1918 when Kaiser Wilhelm stepped down near the end of World War I. The Protectorate was made an official part of Germany -- which may make a difference as far as the copyright ruling is concerned -- but was (as the name implies) "protected" by the Nazi regime. Until these issues are cleared up,
- Comment: @Beyond My Ken and Harold: if you are going to start nominating such German stamps for deletion, it would be better to complete the stalled process of dealing with ALL the German stamps showing the template {{PD German stamps warning}} instead of just a few. There are around 8,000 stamps in that warning category and all the above nominated stamps, except 1, are within the category Category:German stamps review. You may want to refer to all the other links on this page Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review before proceeding because nothing has been done for several years despite the 2012 Berlin court decision that German stamps are generally not in the public domain as we had claimed. Perhaps we need to revive this whole issue and deal with it once and for all. Though as previously we will need more hand on deck to properly finish it. Ww2censor (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- My intention was to deal with Czechoslovak and Czech stamps at Commons, and the Protectorate is a part of Czech history. I have no plan to look into German stamps in generally. Though, I agree it would be better to finish review (link above), if there is a general problem about German stamps. --Harold (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Zumindest die Marken von B. Heinz (1894-1940) sind gemeinfrei. Mein Michel-Katalog nennt nur Nachnahmen (Google hilft dann nicht), mein Lipsia-Katalog der DDR (1957) zeigt keine Marken der Nazi-Diktatur. Solange die Urheber nicht bekannt sind, natürlich Keep. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all that don't have a confirmed death date before 1950. There's no reason why this government would be different in copyright terms than other German government works. Buidhe (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Hypothetical claims of copyright owners are highly questionable for a number of different reasons: Which contry's law is applicable? Is there a personal artistic creation? Have these stamps been created primarily for postal use, not for propaganda? Do these copyright claims outweigh the obvious public interest in the documentation of a dark chapter of history? It would be interesting to see these claims tested in court, but the probability that copyright owners will raise them is close to zero. Our pedantry should stop here. -- Quintus V. (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- One more point: The Theresienstadt stamp is reproduced in W. G. Sebald's novel Austerlitz. If publishers Carl Hanser and Fischer Taschenbuch, as well as the publishers of several translations, have seen no copyright problem, why then should we? -- Quintus V. (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: those are not government works, so, they are reviewed as regular works. {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} could be applied to some stamps where the designer isn't stated on the stamp itself - here the stamp isn't free in US per URAA (as it wasn't free in 1996). Some have designers' names and they are not free even in Germany, as long as in the US. --rubin16 (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)