Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/01/30

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive January 30th, 2021
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Perchè la voce che volevo aggiungere non è stata giudicata valida dall'amministratore e quindi il file non verrà mai utilizzato. GiuDor (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Користувач:IgorT and then bot Doctor Architect (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


--Микола Василечко (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding OTRS permission after my deletion request. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Permission was given. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bitte löschen, da Angaben z.T. versehentlich fehlerhaft Hessenlöwe (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Кирилий. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


--Микола Василечко (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding OTRS permission after my deletion request. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Permission was given. (I am not closer here, but since it's my nomination I believe I can be the closer in this case.) Doctor Architect (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

Por que no estoy de acuerdo con las cláusulas de que cualquiera puede disponer del contenido de la novela sin reconocer los derechos de autor Guillermo Gonzalo Sánchez Achutegui (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned/replaced by File:Bohlmann-Rahtz-Synthese V.2.svg by the same uploader. Leyo 20:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused user logo, uploader has no other live global contributions. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 00:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This picture is from google streetview. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7720518,139.7045839,3a,75y,242.25h,99.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skU9g8Qt05mNPVIuX4_qciA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:OOS Frodar (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:OOS Frodar (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not own work --NoFrost (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not own work --NoFrost (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent sculpture in France, there is no FOP, therefore it is a derivative work and a copyright violation.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bon soir James This may well be the case but I doubt the free-spirited artist would refuse permission since the work is a whimsical tribute to her dead friend and in any case it's not an especially good (or indeed good) photograph. It is difficult to see who would benefit from the deletion of an unusable picture of this little delight in a sad part of Paris. I take the point (odd though such a restriction is from a country born in revolution) but I hope it stays. Notafly (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say is true. I, too, would like to keep it, but is our firm policy to respect copyright as required by the applicable law -- in fact, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle anticipates all of your arguments.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your full and sympathetic answer Jim. I see you have no choice.I'll write the Ministry of Culture to see if there is a chance of changing this law.Pragmatism is a French virtue so we will see Thanks again Robert aka Notafly (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone in scope? (Note: Not a sculpture.) E4024 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

request by user Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ngarnett001 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope personal works.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope Lotje (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplication of File:Royal Badge of Wales.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of scope The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Sportakus10 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be a television screenshot; I assume this is copyrighted. Mosbatho (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Music art cover, see here. Mosbatho (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by SueSiri (talk · contribs)

[edit]

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Asterlan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: files related to a non-notable fictional archipelago somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean.

HyperGaruda (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 10:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced in fr:Hydrogénation and ar:هدرجة with TeX equivalent:

Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 10:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 10:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced in en:Open channel spillway with TeX equivalent:

Un-gated spillway:
Gated spillway:

Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced in en:Open channel spillway with TeX equivalent:

Un-gated spillway:
Gated spillway:

Now unused image that should not be an image, please delete redirect File:Skimming flow equations.jpg.png.jpg as well WIKImaniac 15:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

Replaced in en:Talk:1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ with TeX equivalent:

Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope. Questionable notability of person and company. SCP-2000 16:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

logo of some sort, unused and probably out of scope, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 23:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 10:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No COM:FOP in the United States for sculptures. Subject is a 2017 work by en:Ai Weiwei who is still alive. Can be undeleted 70 years after his death. Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Metadata shows that this image is a screenshot. The user who uploaded this file will need to indicate the source. Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rikkyo University (rikkyo.ac.jp) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppap mj (talk • contribs) 08:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:DW of copyrighted newspaper. Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

duplicate of File:Ospedale Gonfalone, Monterotondo(2).jpg Threecharlie (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a copyrighted work by Epic Games for the game Fortnite. Hakken (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Howhontanozaz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Unlikely to be "own work". Small file with missing metadata. All previous uploads of this user were deleted at different times due to copyright violations. Regasterios (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Japan for statues. Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

uncler copyright, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination - would require COM:OTRS since metadata is clearly labeled (C). --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful own work by anonymous uploader, of dead person - maybe scan. The same for File:Living Seat Positional-Asphyxiation-children.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

copyvio, author is not identified Barbarian (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

License is obviously incorrect (how can a newsreel about a 1937 event be from 1922?) Pathe News is still around, so it's unlikely they let the license lapse. Mcrsftdog (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the person in the photo. I am trying to have it removed as it was never uploaded with my consent. 172.250.3.202 22:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

no category, out of scope, description: "pretty picture". Pibwl (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statue of Porthan, derivative work of Finnish sculptor Martti Peitso, died in 1994. No Freedom of Panorama for sculptures in Finland, not in PD yet. Htm (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

atteinte aux droits d'auteurs Xuvier (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: deleted by Minorax. --Jianhui67 TC 08:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

atteinte aux droits d'auteurs Xuvier (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: deleted by Minorax. --Jianhui67 TC 08:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is very likely a copyright violation. It appears to be an official MLB/team headshot and appears as early as 2009 where it is attributed to "REUTERS/Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Debora Robinson/Handout." In any event, it is not the "own work" of the author as described in the summary. Denniscabrams (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused, useless, no encyclopedic value, no cat, etc F (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a copyright notice in the bottom right corner of the image. Is this a copyrighted photograph by UCI? Mosbatho (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

no sign of free license, not available in given source, ot of scope anyway. Pibwl (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Urheberrecht HaSt (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: deleted as no source for DW provided. --rubin16 (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced in fr:Nitrilium with TeX equivalent:

Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this argument. The TeX representation is not equivalent. It has the plus sign inside a circle, which is common but not perhaps as widely used to indicate positive charge as a plus sign without a circle, as in this image. The TeX option also uses serif rather than sans-serif font, and it requires more complicated markup than an image, making it harder for editors to use widely across Wikipedia. This image is drawn in a way consistent with WikiProject Chemistry conventions (e.g. en:Wikipedia:Molecular structure diagram and en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Structure drawing). There are lot of substandard chemistry diagrams on Commons, maybe start there rather than with high quality images that happen not to be vector. --Ben (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjah-bmm27: I have to agree with you in parts. Unfortunately, I used someone else's formula made in 2016 instead of making my own. Therefore, I did not notice that the font and characters for the charge were different from the original representation. Please excuse this carelessness and thank you for your important hint. I have improved both aspects. --WIKImaniac 09:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: in my opinion the formula is not a more complex diagramm. In addition, I do not understand why the textual presentation should be worse for the reader. An enlargement of the pixel graphic leads to fragments, which is not the case with the textual representation, to name just one of the positive effects. Furthermore, I don't think it's fair to include the image in the article en:Nitrilium (which I haven't edited) while this discussion is still ongoing. --WIKImaniac 09:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is this diagram needs to be consistent with the vast majority of chemistry diagrams which are too complex for TeX. In principle PNGs are raster and therefore look pixellated at high magnification, but in practice this is not a major issue as the PNGs are high resolution. I re-added the diagram to en:Nitrilium because this discussion revealed it had been removed inappropriately in the past and I hadn't noticed. --Ben (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now i see your point. It's impossible too change all formulas in a single atomic transaction, but this isn't neccessary at all. It is a fact that different articles and formulas look slightly different. It's an ongoing process to make the pages look similar. Therefore, one must start at one point to convert formulas to TeX in order to use the advantages of TeX. So, I think, we agree to disagree. ;-) --WIKImaniac 18:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine. Editors can use TeX if they like, or they can use SVGs or PNGs that meet MOSCHEM standards. Good luck with your efforts to improve the quality of diagrams on Commons. --Ben (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per discussion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could be replaced with TeX equivalent:

unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I see no TeX equivalent at all, let alone one that would match the standard style of more-complex chemical diagrams, or any other replacement proposed. This image has COM:EDUSE as seen from the image-description. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: You're right, since the image is not in use, no formula was created. From my point of view, this is not necessary, as various different representations has already been used in the relevant article, cf. en:Organozinc compound. Until October 12, 2019
2  I + 2 Zn0 → ZnEt2 + ZnI2
has been used, since then
2 EtI + 2 Zn0 → Et2Zn + ZnI2
is used. So I still see no reason to keep the unused image, which shouldn't be an image. I hope you can now understand my motives. --WIKImaniac 09:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per discussion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious license as it states it has been taken from a newspaper. 2001:A61:3A03:AB01:44B4:DD1D:A267:6407 16:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per COM:TOY Ubcule (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 23:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced in es:Nitrilimina and fr:Nitrilimine with table and TeX equivalent:


1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5

Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep That TeX layout is just horrible in some browsers or uses...the three lines of the "equivalent" symbol are not equally spaced and are not all centered vertically compared to the element symbols. ChemTeX is really not up to snuff for widespread use of skeletal-like diagrams. An image gives exact pixel or alignment control and has widely available standard style-sheets to give clean and consistent results. The nominated image is not great, but it's fully consistent and thus can be fixed to be consistent-and-better for all. DMacks (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: thank you for your message. I checked the display in different browsers: Chrome 87.0, Firefox 83.0, Edge 88.0, even Inter Explorer 11 and mobile devices. It seems like there aren't any problems with the display. The lines of the "equivalent" symbol are also displayed at identical intervals. Since the textual representation can be translated into different languages ​​or colored, for example, if necessary, I still consider it to be the better option. This is in line with the view taken in this project since more than a decade. --WIKImaniac 10:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the policy of Commons to host files that have educational value in terms of those that are reasonably/potentially in-use in Wikipedia articles. What you are seeing across multiple DRs is that editors active on those sites feel that these TeX options are often not as good for use in the articles as other Commons files. That might not feel good as a Commons-centric editor looking to clean up here or one who wants to promote a certain style (either in terms of file/TeX/etc or font/etc), but it's not the role of commons to tell the Wikipedia sites what styles to use. This screenshot looks poor (Firefox 85.0) and is consistent with what I have seen for a long time. An image looks exactly as it was designed on all platforms. DMacks (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per majority. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chem Sim 2001: Sure! :-)
<math>\mathsf{2\ Na + 3\ Et_2Zn} \longrightarrow \mathsf{2\ Et_3Zn^{-}Na^{+} + Zn^0}</math>
Whenever you need an TeX equivalent, please feel free to contact me. --WIKImaniac 18:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WIKImaniac: Sure, thanks for the offer and TeX code. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chem Sim 2001: You're welcome! --WIKImaniac 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence that this photo was published under Creative Commons licencse; specified date is date of upload, not the date of shot WindEwriX (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced in ko:네기시 반응 with TeX equivalent:

Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you in parts. Unfortunately, I used someone else's formula made in 2016 instead of making my own. Therefore, I did not notice that the font and characters for the charge were different from the original representation. Please excuse this carelessness and thank you for your important hint. I have improved both aspects.
By the way, I don't think it's fair to include the image in the article en:Negishi coupling (which I haven't edited) while this discussion is still ongoing. --WIKImaniac 10:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subscript "n" were not legible in the first (italics is reasonable but not required...would have to check a style guide to see if either is actually preferred). Actually in general the text above/below arrows in TeX renders in a pixelated or JPEG-artifact-like way. Perhaps there is a general fix for this? Those areas look to be a slightly smaller font-size, whereas chemistry images typically have the same font/size/etc on the arrow vs left/right of the arrow:
That is "Cat./solv." should match "Reactant". More importantly, that the top of the capital "C" of "Cat" is cropped. (screenshot). Until the TeX is "at least as good as" the plain graphics in terms of how the page displays, I'm making an editorial decision to use the better among the options there (I think the image had been in use until it was replaced; I undid that change). DMacks (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per discussion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

These two photographs were taken by a Department of State employee but the presence of a three-dimensional work of art in the picture presents an issue since there is no FoP in the US. (the 3-D art was also not created by the US government) So figured this is a potential FoP issue and started a DR to discuss..

Abzeronow (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep@Abzeronow: Since when are people "a three-dimensional work of art". Two persons are not "3-D art". Tm (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the big red SPY sign that is prominently in the background of both pictures. Abzeronow (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment@Abzeronow: As you said the text "SPY" is "in the background" and unfocused, so this is a clear case of De minimis. And even if it was not the case, it still would be a clear case of {{PD-Text}}. Tm (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: de minimis. ƏXPLICIT 01:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The mosque was completed in 2008. There is no freedom of panorama in Yemen, thus permission from the architect is needed.

A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Qatar

A1Cafel (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Qatar, artist Urs Fischer is still alive

A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps can pass COM:DM because blacking the building part out (also low resolution) would not make the file useless. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Iran. Interiors are also part of the work of the architect. Doctor Architect (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

duplicate of Template:Switzerlanddisestablishmentdecade 1-Byte (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: unused template. --JuTa 13:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Maxim Gavrilyuk. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. This thing was created in 2014. The original uploader was Хома Брут at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 13:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Plaque was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 13:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. Doctor Architect (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain
The depicted text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright. This tag does not generally apply to all images of texts. Particular countries can have different legal definition of the “literary work” as the subject of copyright and different courts' interpretation practices. Some countries protect almost every written work, while other countries protect distinctively artistic or scientific texts and databases only. Extent of creativeness, function and length of the text can be relevant. The copyright protection can be limited to the literary form – the included information itself can be excluded from protection.
Public domain
This image is a work of a Ukrainian military or Ministry of Defense. According to the Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related rights this work is in the public domain within Ukraine and possibly in other jurisdictions because it is symbol or sign of government authorities, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations.

English | русский | українська | +/−

Wrong. Of course it has original work on the image you took. Look at the design of the flower and picture of a cap on the stone and etc. It will be deleted. Doctor Architect (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


No, its not normal as well. Once this one will be deleted we will delete those as well. Let's not try to move discussion away from it's topic. This discussion is strictly for for Pam-pravoohorontsiam-7458.jpg. If you would like to nominate those other files you may. Once this will be deleted we can go to those others as well. Doctor Architect (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many files from one category are assigned here (example), but not one file. If not, then you are just a pest for me personally. I suspect you're another user's doll. I will submit a request for a bottom check. --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop harassing people who who try fix copyright violations. I care less about you. I see a violation and I fix it. Nothing personal. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. The plaque in memory of this suicide killer was placed on 26 of January 2017. No permission to use. The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 14:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No permission. This plaque was opened on October 13, 2015 (on the school №230). The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. Memorial for the person who died in 2014. The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. Memorial for the person who died in 2014. The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 14:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Oleh z Kalusha. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 14:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Pig1995z. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 14:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. Art work made by artist Arne Jones (1914-1976) 178.232.124.8 11:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The depicted sculpture is permanently placed outdoors in a public place in Sweden and therefore covered by freedom of panorama. LX (talk, contribs) 11:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per LX. COM:FOP#Sweden RE rillke questions? 13:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Any permanent Swedish artworks are now Not OK after the 2016 judgment against Wikimedia Sweden (see COM:FOP Sweden). While it is still being debated by some, the Swedish chapter conceded and did not appeal. Hence, the freedom of panorama situation in Sweden is now no longer OK for online publication (at least for any site managed by Wikimedia). Depicted work is by Arne Jones (d. 1976), dated 1953. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquilo and LPfi: fyi. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Deletion request based on incorrect interpretation of court ruling. Image information does not contain enough data to qualify as an item in a "structured database". /ℇsquilo 08:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquilo: the FOP maps seem to say otherwise. Or are the maps plain wrong? (E.g. File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That map is plain wrong. Sweden should at least be yellow or olive green. But a simple map does not contain enough information to outline a complete copyright policy. /ℇsquilo 09:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Esquilo: also some maps which I recently categorized at Category:Freedom of panorama maps. The entry at COM:FOP Sweden also claims "not OK". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Anybody can make a map with dubious interpretations of the laws. If we base DRs on such maps and rewrite the guideline according to the results, then we in the worst case delete hole categories of files based on a mistake by a random user. We should have one authoritative guideline, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden, and use all the reasoning there, including relevant links, to make decisions. –LPfi 11:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Info a fresh thread has been commenced at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Swedish FOP?, with a link to the most detailed discussion about the matter during early 2020. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)


Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure)--A1Cafel (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No permission. Monument erected after 2014. The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. Memorial for the person who died on February 18, 2014. The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Елвіс. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Елвіс. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Самір Гасимов and then bot. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Montereychik. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Oleh z Kalusha. Doctor Architect (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. No mentioning of the author and no permission. Memorial was erected after Ukrainian independence in 1991. Uploaded by Klymenkoy. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. Statue made by artist Graham Stacy (1940-) 178.232.124.8 10:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The depicted sculpture is permanently placed outdoors in a public place in Sweden and therefore covered by freedom of panorama. LX (talk, contribs) 11:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per LX. COM:FOP#Sweden RE rillke questions? 13:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

After the 2016 court case (BBC article, Fortune article, and Artnet.com article), it is evident that Swedish FOP doesn't extend to Wikimedia. As Wikimedia Sweden didn't appealed the verdict, Sweden is now a no FOP country for Commons' purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquilo and LPfi: fyi. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Deletion request based on incorrect interpretation of court ruling. Image information does not contain enough data to qualify as an item in a "structured database". /ℇsquilo 08:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The case was on the database of Wikimedia Sweden. Nothing was said about the legality of publishing images on Wikimedia Commons. There may be implications, now discussed at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden, but nothing as straight forward as what is suggested above. –LPfi (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept nominator withdrawn.(non-admin closure)--A1Cafel (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation. Art work made by artist Ebba Matz (1963-) 178.232.124.8 10:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The depicted sculpture is permanently placed outdoors in a public place in Sweden and therefore covered by freedom of panorama. LX (talk, contribs) 11:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per LX. COM:FOP#Sweden. Maybe de minis or ineligible, too. RE rillke questions? 13:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

After the 2016 court case (BBC article, Fortune article, and Artnet.com article), it is evident that Swedish FOP doesn't extend to Wikimedia. As Wikimedia Sweden didn't appealed the verdict, Sweden is now a no FOP country for Commons' purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquilo and LPfi: fyi. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Deletion request based on incorrect interpretation of court ruling. Image information does not contain enough data to qualify as an item in a "structured database". /ℇsquilo 08:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The case was about the database, not about individual files. –LPfi (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept nominator withdrawn.(non-admin closure)--A1Cafel (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Omylem jsem tuto fotografii nahrál v tiskovím rozlišení. Prosím o smazání Filip Jandourek (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omylem jsem tuto fotografii nahrál v tiskovím rozlišení. Prosím o smazání Filip Jandourek (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wiki crew, I have a urgent request to delete this photo. It's my photo. I'm the only owner and author of this photograph. By a mistake I have put the photo there in very high resolution instead of small web size picture. At the moment I'm worry that anyone can download the photo and use it. So please let me deleate it from my profile and I will repleace it with small size one. Thank you for you help. Regards, Filip Jandourek Filip Jandourek (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: courtesy deletion (nominated the same day it was uploaded). --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

ファイル名を間違えた 14.11.69.32 23:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: "wrong file name" is no valid reason for deletion, try renaming instead. ファイル名間違いは削除対象ではありません. 改名で対応ください. --Yasu (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete. Admittedly, I had no permission from the architectural firm of this SM mall building when transferring this file by Patrickroque01 from enwiki. Undelete when the pending bill to amend the copyright law becomes a law andthe Implementing Rules and Regulations streamlining the future Philippine FOP is created. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

img is not free Barbarian (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: дата обнародования, источник неизвестны, скорее всего автор снимка неизвестен, оцифрован в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: дата обнародования, источник неизвестны, скорее всего автор снимка неизвестен, оцифрован в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: дата обнародования, источник неизвестны, скорее всего автор снимка неизвестен, оцифрован в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: дата обнародования, источник неизвестны, оцифрован в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: здание разрушено в начале XX века, дата обнародования, источник неизвестны, скорее всего автор снимка неизвестен, оцифрован в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: дата обнародования, источник неизвестны, скорее всего автор снимка неизвестен, оцифрован в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: дата обнародования, источник неизвестны, скорее всего автор снимка неизвестен, оцифрован в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: дата обнародования, источник неизвестны, оцифровано в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: дата обнародования неизвестна, скорее всего автор снимка неизвестен, оцифрован в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии: дата обнародования, источник неизвестны, оцифровано в наше время 2A00:1370:815E:3793:E8F9:ECC3:81EE:9A3E 00:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative work of non-free artwork. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by JuTa as Dw no source since (dw no source since). This file should continue to be used as a "fair use" file in TR:WP, from where it was imported here. In Commons we do not accept "fair use". E4024 (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Il comporte des erreurs "invisibles" : le fond est transparent au lieu d'être blanc. J'ai publié une nouvelle version pour éviter la confusion : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blason_commune_de_Marchin_(Wallonie).svg Saperlipan (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of being released into public domain, [1] has nothing about copyright of the image, and the website as a whole is marked as copyrighted. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

screenshot von https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ltxeGrd5yU&ab_channel=Gabriella9797 Ralf Roletschek 12:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Screenshot of unfree YouTube video. Some YouTube videos are licensed as CC-BY, but this one doesn't have a free license. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

EXIF with Privacy data TurnOnTheNight (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: already done by Wdwd. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparent derivative work of a street map. Cannot be an own work. Yasu (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish💬 18:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative work. E4024 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish💬 18:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine and even no attribution to the original author (architect). Doctor Architect (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Why do you need to humiliate the work of an architect to be able to keep your image? Do you even know what was it's architect to make such statement? Doctor Architect (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the decision and explanation of the administrator @Ruthven: for this building. And this building is not original at all - a box with windows and doors. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That decision was on another building where the architect and the building wasn't notable. This is an entirely different case. Yo are mizing some small building by unknown architect and civic constructivist building by a professional architect. Doctor Architect (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To administrators: This building - typical box with windows and doors without architectural details. Same building kept by administrator Ruthven (talk · contribs). If you delete this file then you need to delete this file which is left.. --Микола Василечко (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A "box with windows and doors without architectural details" . Constructivist art had attempted to apply a three-dimensional cubist vision to wholly abstract non-objective 'constructions' with a kinetic element. You can't make comparison between a soviet-era civil constructivist building and and some new construction. You may want to read about Narkomfin building which is also a "box with windows and doors without architectural details" . Perhaps your architectural perception will change after that. Hopefully. Doctor Architect (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absurdity! If you take the absurd idea, then you need to remove 70% of images from this category!. --Микола Василечко (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ping again @Ruthven: why didn't you delete same building? There you can see the new house and architectural details. --Микола Василечко (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop spam harassing Ruthven? He doesn't have to reply to you. One ping was enough, no need for three. Plus you still don't seem to understand what was tried to explain to you above about difference between those two buildings. 13:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no difference between the houses: both were built after the 1960s, there is no information about the author, no architectural details. --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know the architect it doesn't mean that there is no information about the architect. You have to add his name. Also the second building was not build in 1960s. Plus even it it was you can't apply the same judgment to all various types of buildings if you try to correlate them jut by not knowing both architects names. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Микола Василечко and Doctor Architect: I would  Keep this one. The copyright law protects creative works. This means that the work must have “at least a modicum” of creativity, and it must be the independent creation of its author. So, a building which is a product of avant-garde studies is indeed protected, even if it is a "cube with windows", but subsequents cubes with windows are not copyrightable because they are not original enough. Without insulting anyone, architecture is made by artistic works and by regular, no-creative works. For instance, in File:Piazza della consolazione.jpg, the church is certainly a creative work (and would have been under copyright in the 17th century), but the orange building is a common household, not really copyrightable because not creative/original. This distinction is rather common, no big deal. --Ruthven (msg) 10:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: How does your decision fit with the law that the architect owns rights on his work and Ukraine has NO FoP? Does any Commons user now can decide now that the work of an architect was just a box with a wondoes? Are you being serious now by saying that only the first work in one style is protected and others are not? You are entirely wrong my friend. If you would go at least through the first two semesters of the grad school of architecture you would realize that. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doctor Architect: Yeah, sure. --Ruthven (msg) 19:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep That's a typical standard project for administrative buildings in Ukraine. Not even sure there is an individual architect of this building, it was likely built by some engineering institute — NickK (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per discussion. Typical building, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chortkiv10.jpg. --Anatoliy (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Potential copyvio. Missing valid exifdata and can be found in google SCP-2000 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 18:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

unclear free licence - the author is supposed to be some Apebas. Pibwl (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 18:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

تغیرات اشتباه بر روی عکس Soheilchehri (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Soheilchehri: Hey, It's just a cropped, beacuse the main file height was not fit for where used it أحمد بن زين الدين الأحسائي. --Ruwaym (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Hanooz 09:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope: Unused personal file of a non-contributor. I haven't found any UKDSSR which would use this flag. TFerenczy (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal coat of arms of someone from Stratford, not of Stratford itself; probably out of scope. Found here, so most likely copyvio ( The heraldic emblems found in the Register may not be reproduced in any form or in any media without the written consent), too. TFerenczy (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

copyright violation https://www.facebook.com/orueastnewmedia/ Theroadislong (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not violate the Wikipedia Commons policies and guidelines. The photo was taken by me some time ago and I shared to a friend who then posted it on social media. I am using it for my article because I find it suitable for the subject I am writing about. I appeal for its retention. Thank you all.Nwachinazo (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

An insignificant person, photos are used for self-promotion. GAndy (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: already deleted by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 16:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Work is by the Dutch-French painter en:Kees van Dongen who died in 1968. Assuming this was first published in the Netherlands/France in 1930, it won't enter the public domain in its source country until 2039 (1968+70+1) and the US until at least 2026 (1930+96+1). Howhontanozaz (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Can be restored in 2039. --Rosenzweig τ 16:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg predates this file and the raster SVG it came from. Should be deleted with the same rationale as e.g. File:Anatomy of the Human Ear eu.png. Cherkash (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely clear that these are not the same image. I suggest you Cherkash, brush up on the deletion policy. CFCF (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: Yes, they are actually the same image. You have to compare the JPG in question to the early versions of the SVG: e.g. this one from 28 April 2009. They are the same but for some minor details. Cherkash (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So someone improperly replaced one image with a completely different image. That isn't an argument to delete this unless an exact copy svg exists as a separate file. CFCF (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: No, they are not completely different images. They are essentially the same: the later revisions were just a graphically improved version of the same earlier image. And yes, an exact copy exists: it's an old revision of the SVG mentioned above: so it's already saved for posterity in case someone needs it. Cherkash (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I suggest you brush up on the deletion policy. The images are certainly similar, but they are most assuredly 'completely different images'.
The changes made in 2009 to the prior SVG are frankly improperly performed as they do not constitute what you call a 'graphical improvement', but rather a major change that hardly reuses any of the old assets. Whether the update improves the image at all is contestable, as evidenced by the use of this image in the 2013 CNX Anatomy & Physiology textbook, which specifically chose it over the other one. That a similar variant exists as an old SVG revision is entirely irrelevant and ignores the deletion policy. CFCF (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF:
  • Are you trying to be cute here about the 2013 CNX textbook? The current version of the textbook doesn't contain either of the two versions of this image (see Figs. 14.5, 14.6, 14.10). And back in 2013 there was only one version (the old one) available on Commons (the updated one was not uploaded by Jmarchn until Sep. 2018).
  • As I mentioned above, the JPG in question and the early version of the SVG in question (from 28 April 2009) are the same but for some minor details. Do you not agree with this statement? So keeping this JPG is redundant: there is already a better quality (SVG) image available, of which the JPG was just a derivative. If you really want to have the old SVG version explicitly available, it can be made its own image in its own right by creating a duplicate with a new unique name. I am not sure this is what you are fishing for, but if it is, feel free to do just that. This doesn't invalidate the deletion request for JPG though, as you tried to argue above. Cherkash (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not trying to be anything. I had missed that the replacement came in 2018, but that doesn't negate my point that they are separate images, both serving potential functions. Sure, the older version of the svg can be made into a separate file, but frankly standard procedure is the other way round — to make the new image into a new file. But this hasn't been done, so that is beside the point — it's not an argument for deletion at present. CFCF (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
There is NO demonstrated need for the old image on any of the wiki projects. If there were, interested editors could/would make the old (or new!) version into a separate file. As it stands now, the old version is preserved in the file history, and there's no need for an inferior-format (JPG vs. SVG) image to linger around. Cherkash (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Image nominated for deletion
Image it's a duplicate of

Now, Cherkash, do I have the two images you're talking about here? Because I'm pretty sure that if I showed these two images to someone and asked whether they were the same, the response would be that they are different colors, which means they are different.

If your complaint is that Jmarchn uploaded a completely different (IMO prettier) image a few years ago, then it doesn't seem to me like the solution involves deleting this one. That's a problem that needs to be solved at the File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg page, and cannot be solved by deleting any other image on Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proper comparison is this: this JPG candidate for deletion vs. an earlier edition of the SVG file (e.g. this one from 28 April 2009). They are the same but for some minor details.
And by the way, unlike what you suggested, I have no complaint about overwriting an earlier SVG with what you called a prettier version. Instead, I believe there's no reason to keep an inferior duplicate of the SVG's earlier version (which will remain available even after deleting this JPG - so nothing will be lost). Cherkash (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Closed as Kept, no consensus to delete. Similar but slightly different illustrations are not prohibited. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Cherkash as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates (JPEG -> SVG). -- Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: These aren't duplicates - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unlikely to be own work of the uploader. jdx Re: 00:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - When I extracted a crop of this image and saw that the uploader had put it up as own work I figured it would be nominated for deletion pretty quickly. So, I took the liberty of researching the image. From what I can tell, the photograph cannot be found anywhere else on the internet which rules out it simply being an upload from some website. Further, when I copied the image onto an editing software to crop an image out of it, I found that it automatically flips vertically (This can be seen in the image's metadata). This, coupled with the very large image resolution (7,014 × 5,100 pixels) suggests that it's a scan from a physical photograph. Taking a look at the user, the only works they've ever uploaded were this image and another like it. The other photograph, File:Gabinete foto 2.jpg proves that both images were scanned from physical copies by the user (The far left of the image shows where the photograph cuts off and the printer lid is scanned instead). The photograph's description only says "Gabinete" which is Spanish for "Cabinet" meaning they probably are a native Spanish speaker which is in line with the country of origin. All of this leads me to believe that, while I doubt the user physically took the photograph in the 1980s, it probably is a genuine scan of a physical photograph owned by them or their family. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. COM:DW. Recent images, so not PD anyway. We need a permission from the original photographer. May be undeleted 50 years after publication, i.e. 2032, as it is probably a governement work. --Yann (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Nilton_Diaz_y_sus_socios.jpg&oldid=529176585 Diaz0616 (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No license, no source, no date, no author. --Yann (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons scope, part of bulk import Ubcule (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Nice image, may be educational, i.e. to illustrate babies, etc. --Yann (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

EXIF with Privacy data TurnOnTheNight (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Used. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

EXIF with Privacy data TurnOnTheNight (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Used. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

EXIF with Privacy data TurnOnTheNight (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Used. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

EXIF with Privacy data TurnOnTheNight (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Used. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Benim dosyan be vazgectim internette bulunmaktan 102.164.150.209 13:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for deletion, but  Delete as it seems to be either a screenshot or a derivative work without source. --Achim (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Achim. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is actually a part of Exodus' "Pleasures of the Flesh" album cover. As such, I don't think it can remain on Wikimedia Commons, at least not under the current copyright license. Neptune, the Mystic (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Это фото - моё, но это не Малиновое озеро, а Малое Яровое, фото сделано мной в июне 2012 года. Размещено на форуме сайта sibmama.ru, ссылка на пост https://forum.sibmama.ru/viewtopic.php?p=31055647#31055647. И дело даже не в том, что разместивший фото человек заявил себя автором, информация об этом фото не соответствует действительности. 176.51.79.221 15:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. No evidence of a free license. --Yann (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

When I put the name, I wrote "Antoins" and not "Antoine" Jppallarea (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copied from https://i2.wp.com/chateausaintantoine.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/chateau-st-barnabe.jpg. --Yann (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 15:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

has leftover copyright notice for the music file (which has been deleted from this version). This is to clear up any copyright confusion over this specific file. SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: as per Magog the Ogre. --Yann (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replaced in fr:Théorie des ensembles non bien fondés with TeX equivalent:

Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

image that should not be an image, used on user pages only WIKImaniac 16:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 16:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we move this over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanice Gounden (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

کراپ عکس بدون اجازه از عکاس Soheilchehri (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrongly uploaded Niedrug (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Complex logo, no permission. --Yann (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo of a photo. Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image from a book, probably. Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image from a book, probably. Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible false license. Public domain claim is disputed. Currently license box says "because it was published before January 1, 1951" and source is from 1972. Doctor Architect (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Source is there. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possibly false license. Uploader User:Микола Василечко claims that "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights", but there is no proof for this. Doctor Architect (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Source is there. --Yann (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

no real educational use, no useful description, no category. Pibwl (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

unknown event, no description, no cat - no real educational use. Pibwl (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This research is so arcane as that anyone cant do the simple gesture of checking the other uploads of this user and see what they are all about. Tm (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 On hold Due to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 On hold Due to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file was initially tagged by Miwako Sato as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not a work owned by the uploader and can be found generally on the internet (such as this link) - Maybe ok for PD-Old/PD-Art? Wdwd (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The year "1880" mentioned in the description of this file is the year the text was composed. But the year the edition of the text contained in this file was published is 2009, according to its preface. --Miwako Sato (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Alzoubi36 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. The plaque was placed in 2017. The original uploader was Maximaximum at Wikimedia Commons. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom, COM:FOP Ukraine.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong permission info – youtube screenshot most likely urv. Certainly no license review Johannnes89 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On their website "The Ocean Cleanup" says the following about their content on YouTube: "When uploading a video using our footage, please make sure to credit The Ocean Cleanup in the title or description of the video and include a link to our website." see [Website] --Tfr.didi (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which does not mean, that they've uploaded the video using a CC BY 3.0 licence. You're citing YouTube [2] which allows users to use these licences [3], but Ocean Cleanup didn't use it.
And you wrongly claim your upload has been reviewed on 30 January 2021 by reviewer The Ocean Cleanup – this user doesn't even exist. --Johannnes89 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public domain is disputed. No proof of original publication (some blog site that gives no info) and no proof of the author of the pfoto. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public domain claim is disputed. No proof of original publication date, no proof of source and location, but yet there is a clain for PD. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public domain claim is disputed. No proof of original publication date, no proof of source and location, but yet there is a claim for PD. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public domain claim is disputed. No proof of original publication date, no proof of source and location, but yet there is a claim for PD. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No your image cant be kept only because you want to use PD-old-100-expired without any proof that such license can be applied here. Doctor Architect (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely incompetent in this. More than 100 years have passed and work is as free as thousands of others here. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest to leave discussion about my competency out. Without it the meaning of your sentence will not change. Have you read the sentence on the license till the end? "...because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1926." Where is the proof that it was PUBLISHED before January 1, 1926? Doctor Architect (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; no source. --Ciell (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public domain claim is disputed. No proof of original publication date, no proof of source and location, but yet there is a claim for PD. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use another wiki as a source. Someone (yo or me) could upload file that violates the rights and even upload the face of someone else by mistake. And when you have no idea who is the author and when it was published we cant assume that he "probably died 70 years ago". Doctor Architect (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is logical. 97 years have passed since then. The author was at least 18 years old at the time. Is he 115 years old now? Big laugh! --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? Since unknown publication date? Do you have a proof that the image was published 97 years ago? Doctor Architect (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Лука Сафіян died March 3, 1926. Did the photographer photograph the dead later? --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always 70 years. If there were repressions against photographer than it's double the time. So you need to know the authoer and the publication place and date. 19:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you competent in this? --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is why I mentioned that it's important to know the date and place of the publication. Check out point number 4: "If the author of a work was repressed and posthumously rehabilitated, the period of validity of the exclusive right is considered extended and seventy years are calculated from January 1 of the year following the year of rehabilitation of the author of the work". You may use Google translate if you can't read in Russian. Before Ukrain was established in 1991 there was USSR. Before USSR there was Russian Empire. Russian Federation is continuation of the USSR and of the Russian Empire from the point of Laws. Doctor Architect (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Лука Сафіян lived not in Ukraine and not in Russia, but in Austria-Hungary and Poland. What is Russia and the Russian Empire for here? Putin khuilo! The whole world knows this! --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same opinion about Putin as you have. Putin, Poroshenko, Zelenskij are all the same. But I don't think that we are discussing Putin here so let's go back to Luka. Luka was born in Kopychyntsi which was part of the Russian Empire and he lived there until at least 1910. Doctor Architect (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; no source. --Ciell (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Questionable license Allo002 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ciell (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public domain claim is disputed. No proof of original publication date, no proof of source and location, but yet there is a claim for PD. I won't even mentioned that it's impossible to see the face. But how we can be sure that this face even belongs to the person who is it claimed to be? Doctor Architect (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination; no source. --Ciell (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Let's discuss if this book cover of a recently published book is really ineligible for copyright. It has logo and an interesting font. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, nobody commented, so deleted because there is significant doubt, per COM:PRP. --Elly (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. This is a request to delete file from 16:20, 7 March 2016. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The new version does not violate the freedom of panorama. --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 DeleteThe old version should be removed. --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original deletion request was for the old version which is clearly stated in the original request with the link to the version which is asked to be deleted. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doctor Architect: Hmm, shouldn't call this image as cropped? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: newer versions kept, deleted nominated version. --Elly (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Videos of Jyrki Kasvi at the March for Science in Finland

[edit]

The following files are videos of Jyrki Kasvi (b. 1964; Wikidata:Q5903411) giving speech in a demonstration in Finland in 2017:

In case the speech is considered a copyrightable work, these files would be derivative works of it and thus should be deleted. ––Apalsola tc 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Permission should be sought of the speaker through the VRT-procedure. --Elly (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public domain claim is disputed. Source is given as a publication from 2005 which doesn't match the license claim "because it was published before January 1, 1951". Originally uploaded by Микола Василечко. Doctor Architect (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He probably died? When we have no idea who was he? I don't think so. Doctor Architect (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Uploader does not show that images are in PD without doubt. So deleted per COM:PRP. Can be safely deleted 120 years after 1951, so in 2071. . Also deleted cropped versions File:Василь Галаса - 002.jpg, File:Осип Дяків - 001.jpg File:Осип Кусень - 001.jpg --Elly (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No FoP in Ukraine. Uploaded by Микола Василечко. Doctor Architect (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no FoP also for 2D or 3D in Ukraine. Ad this so called information table made on the stone with a creative logo on top right ad copyrighted text. Doctor Architect (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a stone with a work of art to a trivial text? Those are two different and unrelated things. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you will try to make a false acquisition about me I'll report you to administrators for harassment. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, COM:FOP Ukraine is clear, there is no FOP. This image shows in any case some symbol, and the design of the stone is a creative act. --Elly (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a derivative of File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg which already has the necessary translation. Cherkash (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, because the position of the label "Trompa de Eustaquio" (in two lines) is better in the Spanish version than in the multilingual version. Jmarchn (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Deletion requests for monolingual files with multilingual parents are discretionary. Generally, monolingual files with significant improvements should be kept. Here, the claimed one-line versus two-line difference is not a significant improvement, and even if it were significant, the appropriate fix would be to make the multilingual file have the two-line translation rather than create a specialized monolingual copy of the file. Furthermore, other two-line translations already exist in the multilingual file (e.g., Round window = Ventana redonda). Another reason for saving a monolingual version is to preserve its file history. Pachus made the original file on 24 April 2011, but that version was sourced to / based on Inductiveload's original of 2009. The 2009 version has been extensively improved since then. Jmarchn provided significant visual improvements in 2018. But Jmarchn also fixed Pachus' es-derivative. Such multiple fixes are not needed for multilingual files. As for history, Pachus translation of the medical terms is not significant (Wikidata has translations; Google translate has translations), and Jmarchn's work is already credited in the multilingual file. Glrx (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Glrx: Obviously I disagree with your reasoning:
  1. Deletion for monolingual files with multilingual parents is not covered in the deletion policy.
  2. You know that my priority (in the aspect we are dealing with) is show the drawing with the labels in a correct position and easy to read, which gives harmony to the drawing. Something you don't care about. Our positions were already discussed for a situation similar in User_talk:Glrx#File:Circulatory System en.svg
  3. It is not a matter of [my] authorship or history of the drawings. I don't care about that.
  4. Again a new discussion in order to remove a drawing, in Commons where there are maybe millions of drawings?. Maybe for you wasting time on this issue you don’t care, but for me it does.
Jmarchn (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmarchn: It is actually quite easy to tweak the multilingual version to adjust the labels positioning to your liking. Why don't we do that instead of keeping duplicate single-language files. Is there any other reason why you would object to the proposed deletion? Cherkash (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cherkash:
I would love for what you say to be true. I don’t like having to make a drawing for each language version, and I admit that in some cases it’s not necessary. I would love to remove all language versions as you propose, but unfortunately what you are saying is not true.
1. While it is easy to translate with WMF SVG Translate tool. I have proved this tool, but unfortunately it does not allow:
  1. Position the labels differently.
  2. Put the content in a number of different lines (the one in the original language, English).
  3. Resize the drawing (often too wide for ideographic writing and in some cases too narrow considering that the number of characters in English is to be smaller than in other languages).
  4. Resize the font, for example it is recommended to increase in Arabic writing.
  5. Text in different colors.
2. If the size of the text is not too large it is better (for ease of reading) to convert the text to paths (Text to path command), as unfortunately the Wikimedia viewer is deficient in not having the effect of smoothing the outline of the characters. With the system I exposed the the text of the drawing is saved as text in a hidden layer.
3. A few years ago I did a study and proposals for multilingual and multilayer drawings that I wrote down in a Commons help. That someone made it disappear ...
4. I refuse the deletion because you intentionally and erroneously talk about duplicate files, which would be the reason for deleting one of them (the "mine"). For example, File:Fasil parakkal photo.jpg and File:Fasil-parakkal.jpg may be considered duplicates, but not the "mine" file you want to delete.
5. Obviously I will not request the deletion of your multilingual drawing even though its display is worse, just as I do not request the deletion of jpg files originating from existing svg files.
Jmarchn (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmarchn:
1. Please note I said nothing about the SVG Translate tool: I said it's trivial to do the tweaking and indeed it is if you just text-edit the SVG files. Each individual language can be tweaked separately, even including location of some graphical elements if desired, e.g. pointer lines and arrows. Check this multilingual file in question: it, in fact, does this for some of its languages.
2. I disagree about the text-to-path conversion rationale. I'd rather push towards bettering the rendering software to solve this once and for all for millions of images instead of creating such work-arounds in each individual image (with the side effect of making it much harder to later edit text as text, whenever it becomes necessary).
3. You can restore your study and suggestions, can't you? It's a wiki after all ;)
4. I didn't talk anywhere above about the duplicate files, I said "derivative" - which is clearly not the same.
5. JPGs which are simple derivatives of SVGs is usually a fair game. As for your hypothetical request of deleting a multilingual file - wouldn't it be better to improve it to the standard of your single-language file (at which point it becomes a better version of the two)? If we are not there yet, I'm willing to help us getting there. You can do the same. Would there be any good reason not to focus on such endeavor rather than clinging to a collection of single-language versions when one unified image will suffice?
Cherkash (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cherkash:
About 1. It is true that you have not said anything about the translation tool. But then you say it’s “trivial”; i looked up the meaning of the word in the dictionary and it says that trivial = "is easy to solve". Then the process you offer is more complicated than I explain, because if you need to change the position of the tags (or arrows) you have to do it graphically and then edit (with a text editor) the text of the SVG. If you later want to modify the drawing you must have saved (and thus reuse it) a file in the language in which you want to make the modification as Inkscape does not support the multilingual system.
About 2. I absolutely agree that it would be best to improve the drawing representation program. But currently the result is unsatisfactory in the representation of the text and the best result is with the text-to-path conversion. With my solution there is always a layer that allows you to always easily edit the text as text. In addition, lately, and to facilitate translation in "my" drawings I integrate (outside the framework of the drawing) all the text to be translated.
About 3. You're right but I don't know where it ended up (I've done thousands of edits and logically I don't keep track of it), because I made a significant effort to make the <switch> proposal viable.
About 4. I was certainly the one who talked about duplicates.
About 5. Improving the situation means improving the program of representation and the ease of translation (and I have no knowledge - although I know how to program, but in other languages ​​- no time to change this). I am not clinging to anything in this regard, on the contrary: I would love to have all the translations in one easily editable file. But this is not the current situation, we hope to have a solution in not too long. But what you are currently offering (and forcing) is not a good solution.
Jmarchn (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmarchn:
1. Inkscape allows editing other languages (and definitely allows viewing other languages - so you can verify that specific language's edits are to your liking): Preferences -> Interface -> Language. Adding labels in other languages in a text editor is indeed trivial: just add a single text line per label. Adding/editing arrows and other positions is also simple: there are already examples of this in the SVG file in question, please look it up with a text editor, you'll see it's easy.
3. Your Commons "Contributions" history would obviously help. It shouldn't be that hard to find a relevant article by name or edit description. Even among thousands of edits. But then again YMMV depending on how diligent you are in your edit descriptions and choice of article/topic names.
4. You wrote "I refuse the deletion because you intentionally and erroneously talk about duplicate files" - "you" here referred to me. So your statement was wrong/misleading.
5. I actually suggested we work together on implementing changes. My contributions to this particular illustration has already been cleaning up the code and adding multiple languages. It should be trivial to add more languages or tweak the already-added ones (incl. the Spanish translation we are discussing). If you need help with (or just want to suggest, but not necessarily implement) specific improvements please list them on the multi-language image's Talk page, and I or another editor will do our best to implement them. Why don't we go that route and see if we can get results satisfactory to you so that the single-language image is properly superseded? Cherkash (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmarchn: wrote above
  1. Deletion for monolingual files with multilingual parents is not covered in the deletion policy.
  2. You know that my priority (in the aspect we are dealing with) is show the drawing with the labels in a correct position and easy to read, which gives harmony to the drawing. Something you don't care about. Our positions were already discussed for a situation similar in User_talk:Glrx#File:Circulatory System en.svg
    • That claim is seriously inaccurate. I want diagrams that are accurate, readable, make sense to high school students, can be easily translated into many languages, and are reasonably sized. The interaction on my talk page about File:Circulatory System en.svg covered many issues. Your diagram was inaccurate because it created labels that suggested some blood vessels were both an artery and a vein. The current version is littered with that error. I objected to abbreviating artery and vein; that makes the diagram less readable (but is driven by labeling something as an artery and a vein). I objected to the change of markers to arrowheads as against convention. More seriously, I objected to your conversion of text to curves. That bloated the file from 144 kB to 702 kB, prevents selection of text in the underlying SVG file (an issue that you you fail to understand: "I use Firefox and have never been able to select text from my browser, I don't understand what you are saying."), and confuses the WMF SVG Translate tool.
  3. It is not a matter of [my] authorship or history of the drawings. I don't care about that.
    • So this is not an issue.
  4. Again a new discussion in order to remove a drawing, in Commons where there are maybe millions of drawings?. Maybe for you wasting time on this issue you don’t care, but for me it does.
    • This comment is the "other stuff exists" argument. You acknowledge that "I don’t like having to make a drawing for each language version, and I admit that in some cases it’s not necessary." There are benefits to maintaining a single multilingual file.
I agree that SVG Translate has severe limitations. It expects that all translations will be simple strings (i.e., no embedded bold, italics, or subscripts) placed at the same position using the same font and font size. For me (and probably Cherkash and many others), those are reasonable limitations to make to have a file that can be translated to other languages. Yes, for Arabic and Chinese scripts it may be worthwhile to have a separate file, but we are not debating such a script here. Spanish uses the same script as English, German, and French (all of which are in the multilingual version).
The SVG Translate tool was never intended to be a graphics editor. It will not resize the image, break lines, reposition text, change fonts, or do image manipulations. It just adds text translations while retaining the source text's display properties such as font, font size, and color. The SVG Translate tool has been used many times on File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg.
The SVG Translate tool will allow multiline translations, but that requires all language instances of the text to be translated to have the same number of line or the tool will be confused.
Glrx (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Glrx and Cherkash: Hi!. After rummaging through a few hundred of my uploaded files, I finally rediscovered the "my" missing text in Commons of how to work with Inkscape with different layers and using <switch>. The text with my example is now in Commons:Translation possible/Learn more#Setting up multiple translations within one SVG file with Inkscape. I recovered "my" text (in this section), after Glrx deleted it on 03/04/2019. As you can see I was already looking for solutions with the <switch> option. Now I am too tired to continue this discussion. Good night!. Jmarchn (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarchn: Thanks for finding it. I'm quite confused though what specifically you meant to edit there, as this is much more than just restoring some text in a section: [4]. Cherkash (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmarchn: I have reverted the edits. Jmarchn should take his issues to the talk page. There have been proposals to make layered translations in SVG on Commons going back to at least 2014. The literature on translation prefers a much different approach. Instead of grouping translations into one huge layer per language, the common practice is to use "translation units", which are small phrases that may be individually translated. See, for example, the XLIFF and TMX standards. Jmarchn's approach is poor in other respects. It expects several synchronized files. When one file is updated, then other files should be updated, too. If editors do not follow those rules, then the multiple images get out of sync. There are better ways to implement Jmarchn's layers within a single SVG file using switch. There would be one SVG file rather than multiple instances. (I do not recommend that approach because it does not support translation units.)
That debate is for another place. The issue here is deleting this file. We do not need to have a separate file just to insert a line break. The line break is not needed, and if it were required, it could be inserted into the Spanish translation that exists in the original file. Glrx (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cherkash and Glrx: I am working on a multilingual version. While I redid the drawing with new tags and tags with different color to differentiate the parts of the ear. I will respond in a timely manner to the statements you have made. I am a family doctor in primary care and currently apart from updating medical files on the Catalan Wikipedia I have a lot of work to do. I remove, being the different drawing, the warning to remove the drawing you had put. See you soon. Jmarchn (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarchn and Glrx: Jmarchn - see, this is exactly why it's silly to maintain multiple versions of the same image! While your specific updates to the Spanish version could have benefited the image in all languages all at once (as these changes may indeed present the info more clearly), they are now confined to the Spanish version only. The differences may have started with a single line-break difference, and now they grew into something much bigger - but with no language-specific reason to that whatsoever. This is just pure silliness in my opinion. Cherkash (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per COM:REDUNDANT, as there is an alternative, File:Anatomy of the Human Ear multilingual.svg, which was creative after this DR. The spanish version is not used on the projects. --Elly (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject badly cropped and part covered by intrusive watermark; common species with numerous far better pics on Commons MPF (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, not of educational use, so not in COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg predates this file and the raster SVG it came from. Should be deleted with the same rationale as e.g. File:Anatomy of the Human Ear eu.png. Cherkash (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: this image shows another detail/section of the ear, so no DUPE nor REDUNDANT. --Elly (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg predates this file and the raster SVG it came from. Should be deleted with the same rationale as e.g. File:Anatomy of the Human Ear eu.png. Cherkash (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: this image shows another detail/section of the ear, so no DUPE nor REDUNDANT. --Elly (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images are from an ad or are obviously not taken by Flickr uploader

Elisfkc (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment A few of these images may fall under {{PD-1923}}. Others may fall under {{PD-US-1978-89}}, {{PD-1996}}, or {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}, but since the Flickr uploader did not upload the entire publication that the image is from, we cannot be sure that a copyright claim is made elsewhere in the publication. It is also likely that I missed some other files that should be nominated. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Withdraw this DR please. Far too many images above are public domain by age and clearly of educational value as well, for example the 1905 collection. Other images such as this drawing from an 1858 expedition are so clearly public domain and not an advert, nobody could possibly justify Elisfkc's mass DR as being appropriate or non-disruptive. It seems highly likely they did not bother to actually /look/ at the images before raising them for mass deletion on false grounds. -- (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@: While I understand your point, it seems silly to withdraw this DR. I did look over nearly all of them, but it is likely I failed to deselect some when there are more than 1300 files nominated. Out of the 1300 or so, there are maybe 50 that are obvious public domain. It would be easier to point out the ones that are public domain (I will happily support keeping these so-called obvious public domain images) and keep this DR so we can delete the rest. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a breathtakingly bad answer. You create a huge DR of 1300+ images, you have not looked through them properly, you admit it includes public domain images that should never be deleted, then you make it anybody else's problem to ensure a proper review. No, you don't get to do that. -- (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@: I just released that all of the ones that you uploaded shouldn't have been in here at all. Somehow, they got pulled into the Category:Images by John LLoyd, even though they have nothing to do with said Flickr uploader. I will withdraw those ones (if not right now, sometime later today). --Elisfkc (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw the DR please, then do the spadework properly, and consider creating a new one at that time. -- (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever of these files may be public domain should be listed with such a license rather than the one applied by John Lloyd at Flickr. If not, delete them. And better delete them quick, before they start seeing use in articles. To me the problem seems to be nearly all of the images thoughtlessly uploaded by Artix Kreiger 2. S/he should truly be made to understand that uploading files from Flickr requires a modicum of judgment and intelligence.
A number of files are also incorrectly included in this list, as they are clearly JL's own work (anything with Washington state license plates is probably fine). Here are a few that should be immediately removed from the discussion:
Thank you. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 19:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers: , I'm right here and I am a he. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As a whole; it's simply way too large to handle and contains obviously public domain works. And the majority of them are probably public domain, as US works that either lacked copyright (particularly ads) or renewal. The Alquist catalog, for instance, is PD-US-no renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep While I agree in sorting this all out and that the status of advertisement images is tricky to work with, this collective DR request is too big, potentially allowing for mistakes. I also feel that the three PD templates cover a large majority of these image files. On a side note, most all of these images are Flickr images that were uploaded to the Commons by various users. In that process, images have to be properly licensed (non-commercial use, etc.) or they will be blocked from upload in the first place; in other words, if it was licensing on the Flickr end, these files would not have collected to this point. --SteveCof00 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Artix Kreiger just popped up here (thanks!) - I feel that the responsibility to sort this mess out is his - there may be some problematic files uploaded by others but it looks as if the lion's share were uploaded by his bot only very recently. All the best to all involved, it feels that we are all working towards the same goal, we should remember that. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a bot. Its mass uploads through an automated tool. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the decision on this mass upload is, I'm ready, willing, and able to remove them from the "Unidentified automobiles" category, because the identities of these vehicles are so obvious. Is anyone else willing to do so? ----DanTD (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DanTD: , raises hand. Artix Kreiger (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Community consensus. ~riley (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appear to be Flickrwashed images that are not original user's own (and no evidence of ownership or right to license them as CC-BY-SA).

Part of bulk import by now-banned user. It is quite possible that some of these are freely-usable for other reasons, but the onus is (or was) on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep them- and can explain why- to indicate why.

If the manner in which these images have been nominated (i.e. bulk nomination) is objected to, please explain why- and how it would be preferable to solve this problem instead- and close the nomination. (Reference to a generalised discussion or reference page where such issues have been already thrashed out and a community consensus arrived at would be useful if it already exists).

I could have nominated these separately, but as they're quite clearly related- part of the same bulk upload, by the same bulk uploader, of images by the same Flickr user, and all nominated for the same reason- doing so puts an asymmetrical load on us (versus the (lack of) effort by the bulk uploader who didn't bother to check properly in the first place) I felt it was excessive to nominate each separately.

Edit; I wasn't aware of this, but I now notice that there has been a previous nomination for uploads by this user.

Ubcule (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those in use deserve to be examined more fully than deleting on sus.
Checking up, there only seem to be 3 of these anyway:
File Usage
File:1950 Gutbrod Superior Kleinwagen (5466224677).jpg 1
File:1952 Lloyd (31792496790).jpg 1
File:1958-59 Lloyd LT600 extended station wagon (21455621071).jpg 1
-- (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - Flicrkwashing concern appears valid. The files that are in use are used trivially (in galleries), but I reviewed them per Fae's request. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Continuation of my previous nomination(*) of images that are under dispute because they appear to be scans of magazines and brochures (i.e. not Lloyd's own work as claimed). Same rationale applies:-

"Appear to be Flickrwashed images that are not original user's own (and no evidence of ownership or right to license them as CC-BY-SA)."
"Part of bulk import by now-banned user. It is quite possible that some of these are freely-usable for other reasons, but the onus is (or was) on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep them- and can explain why- to indicate why."
"I could have nominated these separately, but as they're quite clearly related- part of the same bulk upload, by the same bulk uploader, of images by the same Flickr user, and all nominated for the same reason- doing so puts an asymmetrical load on us (versus the (lack of) effort by the bulk uploader who didn't bother to check properly in the first place) I felt it was excessive to nominate each separately."

This nomination includes a few images "traced" by the author (i.e. derivative), but vast bulk are still brochures/magazine scans.

Some images below were included in an earlier deletion request from Elisfkc (talk · contribs) in 2018 and not deleted then. My understanding is they were retained then due to that nomination (not mine) being too broad and closed early, not because they had necessarily been deemed legitimate. (If ~riley (talk · contribs) (who closed that request) wants to confirm this, that would be great).

(*) Note: I'd intentionally not added all images under dispute then as I'd wanted to be sure that bulk request was acceptable in that case.

Ubcule (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these, File:Lloyd 350 (2198862646).jpg (1937), may be old enough to keep as PD. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}
These mass DRs suppress a lot of good content. Any US published adverts before 1977 should be removed from this list. -- (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@: - I already made clear why I felt a bulk nomination was justified. It's completely unreasonable to expect an asymmetric effort on our side in response to a quick-and-dirty bulk upload because the orignal uploader (who the onus was on) didn't bother to correctly check and indicate the license in the first place.
You're an experienced editor, and I assume I don't need to explain why Commons operates on the basis of "required to explain why free in the first place" rather than "assumed free and kept until proven otherwise".
You complain about this bulk nomination, but I see no evidence that you (or anyone else) made the effort to do any of this beforehand. Which is essentially my point.
As I said, "it is quite possible that some of these are freely-usable for other reasons, but the onus is (or was) on the uploader or anyone who wishes to keep them to indicate why."
"Any US published adverts before 1977 should be removed from this list."
You are welcome to do so if you're willing to put the effort in to confirm that and to label them correctly as such. Thank you,
Ubcule (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The example file has been hosted since 2018. It is public domain. It should not be deleted.
There are high risk copyvios, zero risk and very low risk. Nobody is going to lose an eye by failing to delete everything on this zero to very low risk list before a volunteer gets around to looking at them. A proportionate approach does not invalidate precautionary principle it just makes it pragmatic. -- (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@: "Nobody is going to lose an eye". That argument could apply to pretty much everything here, so... your point is?
This has the ring of the "oh, the copyright owner probably won't care about it" attitude. Towards which our response is essentially, "yes, but we do".
You're probably more experienced with knowing what is and isn't PD than I am. But since neither you nor anyone else bothered to indicate that reasoning on those images in the first place, this wasn't clear. As I said, you're welcome to put the effort into fixing this if you wish, but we're not operating on the basis of "assumed free until proven otherwise".
I'll also draw your attention to the fact that the images were nominated for deletion (i.e. prior discussion) rather than marked as copyvios for instant deletion. Again, this gives you the opportunity to fix things up if you feel strongly about it.
Ubcule (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need a different process than DR for situations like this? Something, with a noticeboard, where such batches can be listed for review, rather than for immediate deletion? I'm reminded of some railway batch uploads also from Artix Krieger where we had to do something similar, and fortunately avoided a pointless DR. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: The problem with bulk uploads is that if they're done sloppily (i.e. with the uploader not doing their due diligence in the first place) they have the potential to require a hugely asymmetric effort from others to fix.
I intentionally didn't nominate all the images last time because I wasn't 100% sure that a DR was the ideal solution. Since everyone seemed to consider that broadly acceptable, and no-one else suggested a better way, I finished it off properly this time round.
But ultimately, if we're going to allow bulk uploads, there probably *should* be ways more suited to dealing with them without an asymmetry of effort on our part.
It's just that I wasn't aware of such a solution at present; if there is, no-one's suggested it so far. Ubcule (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 "Any US published adverts before 1977 should be removed from this list. / {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}" Came across here because of the Simca-Fulgur pics. Compare this story. Best --Tom (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep for American ads. Pretty much all of these American ads have no notice, making it PD. It seems these Commons "copyright police" do a lot more harm than good, nitpicking files and mixing in PD photos, wasting others' time and such. This keeps going on and on and hasn't been slowing down at all. Enough already. CutlassCiera 18:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutlass: - If you're asserting that they're public domain for X, Y or Z reason, then label them as such rather than not bothering, then complaining here. That's how Commons is supposed to work. End of story. We're not required to "know" why an incorrectly-labelled image is likely public domain if the uploader, yourself or others (who want to keep them) haven't even bothered to explain why.
I waited a year after the previous nomination, which must would have drawn this user's uploads to peoples' attention. A year in which no-one (yourself included) did anything to fix the remaining images... and yet you're calling people like me the "copyright police"?
(See also my reply to Fæ below.) Ubcule (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as default. Another sloppy DR has wasted volunteer time. If the nominator is struggling to create a DR that can restrict itself to copyright violations but is creating unnecessary long lists which randomly include public domain content, they need to stop. No more of this time sink please, it's not hard to filter for blatant copyvios, it's actually pretty easy for anyone prepared to use standard search and VFC. Blanket huge DRs are damaging and easily avoided. Note this is the fourth time some of these same files have been put up for deletion in a massive DR. The files below need extra careful attention as they are in use.
# File Usage Non-core
1 1950 at LeMans (1).jpg 3
2 1950s Thomas Built Buses model line illustration.jpg 2
3 1957 Chevrolet school bus model line.jpg 1
4 1969 Barracuda Junior (29737043853).jpg 1
5 Brazilian Chevrolet 1985 Double Cabin (4183147558).jpg 1
6 Datsun (8170412687).jpg 1
7 Dodge by Volkswagen (7611901084).jpg 1
8 Ford Pampa (4200743891).jpg 2
9 January 1953 Lloyd Press Photo (4284981927).jpg 1
10 January 1953 Lloyd Press Photo (4285725474).jpg 1
11 JEEP Dispatcher assembly line (5453869248).jpg 1
12 Leukoplastbomber (23623345841).jpg 1
13 Lloyd 350 (2198862646).jpg 2
14 Opel Junior.jpg 7
15 Postwar Holden Built Cars (3152885718).jpg 2
16 Simca Fulgur 1958 (3593990695).jpg 2 1
17 Spatz Victoria in USA (13968097278).jpg 1
18 Suzulight 1959 (5143706221).jpg 1
19 Voisin Biscooter (5533425711).jpg 1
20 Zündapp Janus (2306282524).jpg 2

-- (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@: - The only "sloppy" thing here was the uploader's bulk importation of images without due care in the first place and the general "oh, it'll do" attitude.
Commons' policy is not "upload anything of dubious copyright status then expect someone else to sort out the mess later".
I intentionally nominated the images collectively as it was clear the entire upload was questionable. Nominating individually would have created a huge number of requests. (And I suspect would not have been appreciated by others, least of all yourself.)
There has to be a line drawn where a sloppy bulk upload done with little effort- which would otherwise require a hugely asymmetric amount of work to fix- has to be treated in a similar manner.
There's no onus on anybody to carry out that work, regardless... at least, not unless that other person is the one fighting to have them kept, as you are.
If you disagreed and wanted to keep the remainder of this user's images, you had the opportunity to correctly label them after each of the previous two nominations. You're claiming they're public domain? Good. Why haven't you put in the (not unreasonable) effort it would have taken to label them as such?
You've criticised me despite the fact I waited a whole year before my second nomination of the remainder of the images. A year in which nothing happened.
It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it, or maybe you just don't care about "sloppily" labelled uploads?
Ubcule (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: Delete all. To check all images by hand loads too much work on our limited resources. I consider the damage done by unlawfully uploaded images, inlcuding the risk of fines or penalties for outside use of the material larger then the damage that some articles are devoid of an image. In addition, we have a policy for this: COM:PRP. Images may be deleted where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file. Because of the behavior of the uploader, this doubt is present. Elly (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: most of them per nomination, except for one that had been previously kept as PD-no notice and a few that seemed to be actually scans of the Flickr user's own old photographs. --Rosenzweig τ 16:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]