Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/02/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This request applies only for first version, not for whole file. The first version consists a screenshot with unknown copyright status, so I cropprd it out. Taivo (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Old version deleted. Vera (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I am the creator. The file has an error. 2A02:AA10:E87D:D700:98F:7A93:AC43:8258 20:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you are User:Slechner2520 log in please. --Achim (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I am the creator. The file has an error. Slechner2520 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Ansarullah Leader Abdel Malek Alhouthi.jpg. E4024 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- This should be speedied as crop of a deleted file. My mistake not to inform an admin on time. --E4024 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hindispedia User:Hindispedia ([[User talk:Hindispedia ;talk]]) 11:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept: vandalic DR George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
rage dddfggghhdsthhshsgs hqjqg dhsi uns 105.141.253.2 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalical DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
لا اريد هذه الصورة Mahdi.serdah (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense. --Didym (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
unused artistic(?) photo, no category, no real educational use. Pibwl (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep Belongs to Category:Attersee lake, Upper Austria.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --MB-one (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Author request. I uploaded the wrong images under these titles. This applies for all of the files I uploaded under "Longwood Medical Area station December 2020" Nick Boppel (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Nick (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Author request. I uploaded the wrong images under these titles. This applies for all of the files I uploaded under "Longwood Medical Area station December 2020" Nick Boppel (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Nick (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Author request. I uploaded the wrong images under these titles. This applies for all of the files I uploaded under "Longwood Medical Area station December 2020" Nick Boppel (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Nick (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Author request. I uploaded the wrong images under these titles. This applies for all of the files I uploaded under "Longwood Medical Area station December 2020" Nick Boppel (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Nick (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Author request. I uploaded the wrong images under these titles. This applies for all of the files I uploaded under "Longwood Medical Area station December 2020" Nick Boppel (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Nick (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Author request. I uploaded the wrong images under these titles. This applies for all of the files I uploaded under "Longwood Medical Area station December 2020" Nick Boppel (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Nick (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - appears to be used as a 'meme' on an EN user's user page. Nightfury (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo at 11:20, 3 Februar 2021 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): small photo without metadata, the user's last remaining upload --Krdbot 21:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Ansarullah Leader Abdel Malek Alhouthi.jpg. E4024 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 16:57, 3 Februar 2021 UTC: Per a Deletion Request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Ansarullah Leader Abdel Malek Alhouthi.jpg --Krdbot 21:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This is not a picture of Pedro Pierluisi, as it claims. 2600:8804:8809:C200:494F:918F:AE69:7049 21:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily: insulting & copyvio. --Achim (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sannita as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G2. In my opinion this should be discussed. Taivo (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, @Taivo: , makes sense. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sannita as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G2. In my opinion this should be discussed. Taivo (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Taivo: You're right. --- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 11:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F041361-0026, Bonn, Neubau Landesvertretung Baden-Württemberg (cropped).jpg
[edit]request by uploader Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --JuTa 04:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
False author stated. Author of the scan of the photo is claimed to be the author and not the actual photographer. No mentioning of the original copyright owner. This is the only upload of this author. And after this one-time upload account was used to add this photo another user User:Brunei stared to do extractions of the parts of the image. Doctor Architect (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The author is identified both on the picture itself and in the description. His name is Frolov (unfortunately a very common name), and the second word is likely a name of one of the frequently renamed organisations of 1920s. In early 1920s copyright systematically belonged to an employer and not to an individual photographer, so the second word is most likely the name of the institution Frolov worked for. As the duration of such copyright cannot exceed 70 years in Ukraine (and even less for earlier works), and that this work is also in PD in the US (95-year rule), there is no reason to consider this work is still copyrighted — NickK (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per NickK. Ruthven (msg) 19:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The photo contains enough information about the author (last name Frolov and the location of the photo workshop on Bolshaya Zhitomirskaya street in Kyiv) to identify the author's identity with a known date of production of the photo. While the fate of the author is unknown, the claim that he died before 1951 is unfounded. Thus, there is no sufficient reason to claim that this photo is in the public domain in the country of origin (Ukraine), although it is in the public domain in the United States, as published before 1928. Yellow Horror (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Question You're saying that you have evidence that the author did not die before 1951? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, what I'm saying is that there is no evidence that the author died before 1951.--Yellow Horror (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I understand. That's much less definitive than saying that the claim he died before 1951 is unfounded, at least the way I use that word. It might be founded, but we haven't been given evidence of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, the English is not my native language. May be the word "unsubstantiated" is better than "unfounded" in this case?--Yellow Horror (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Anyway, I got your point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I understand. That's much less definitive than saying that the claim he died before 1951 is unfounded, at least the way I use that word. It might be founded, but we haven't been given evidence of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- At the beginning of the 20th century, there were not so many professional photographers in Kyiv. One of the known names is Alexander Frolov (ru: Александр Фролов), who for some time collaborated with Kornely Vladislavovich Blonevsky (ru: Корнелий Владиславович Блоневский) at 15 Lvovskaya Street before the 1917 revolution. However, I cannot find any connection between Alexander Frolov and the Bolshaya Zhitomirskaya address, so i am in doubt that he is the same Frolov because of the time gap until 1923/1924 and the widespread of the surname Frolov. I also could not find information about the fate of the photographer Alexander Frolov in open sources.--Yellow Horror (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Despite the negative result of my superficial search, I am sure that this work cannot be considered anonymous. The author clearly believed that he had given enough information so that anyone who saw the photograph shortly after it was made could understand who made it (and where to go to meet him). Probably, at that time he had no competitors with the same surname.--Yellow Horror (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Banned user socking. --Yann (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The photo contains enough information about the author (name Frolov and the location of the photo workshop on Bolshaya Zhitomirskaya Street in Kyiv) to identify the author with a known date of production of the photo. So far, we do not know the fate of the author, but the claim that he died before 1951 is unfounded. Thus, there is no sufficient reason to claim that this photograph is in the public domain in its country of origin (Ukraine), although it is in the public domain in the United States, since it was published before 1928. Yellow Horror (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Previous removal request was not considered on the merits due to the erroneous accusation of me being a sockpuppet.--Yellow Horror (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing changed, third attempt to delete by same person. --RAN (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
selfie PetrusTheGrape (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete Facebook image of an out-of-scope person. --E4024 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 12:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry The Anan (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused vanity photos, no educational value, out scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:And Jesus Wept
[edit]Per COM:FOP US, there is no freedom of panorama for statues. And Jesus Wept was completed in 1998.
- File:Jesus statue across from Oklahoma City Memorial (4301587501).jpg
- File:Jesus wept.jpg
- File:OKC (2018) - 33.jpg
- File:Oklahoma City Bombing National Memorial.jpg
- File:Oklahoma City OK USA - National Memorial - panoramio.jpg
- File:Oklahoma City OK USA - panoramio (1).jpg
ƏXPLICIT 06:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
不適切な画像がある つったりん (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination by the uploader: user-requested deletion of recently uploaded file. --miya (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KATHERINE IBARRA A (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album/files storage. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope.| P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Some doubts about claimed authorship by uploader due to their upload-history, blocked-as-vandalism-only-status on :en and missing EXIF data. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jonathan Zadikany (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:2 - Selected Books from the Bible.pdf
- File:1- A Necessary War.pdf
- File:א - ישראל או ישר אל.pdf
- File:ב - ספרים נבחרים מהתנך בגופן ישר.pdf
- File:ב - ספרים נבחרים מהתנך בגופן רגיל.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete all per nom Veverve (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamadghghofficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album/files storage. Not used.
- File:نمایندگی ایرانسل عبدالحسینی.jpg
- File:معرفی محمدقربانی قمشی.jpg
- File:محمدقربانیقمشی وبسایت.jpg
- File:محمدقربانیقمشی1.jpg
- File:محمدقربانیقمشی.jpg
- File:خدمات اینستاگرام.jpg
- File:محمدقربانی.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not in scope. Elliot321 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yanismtp34 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused low quality image of hedgehog. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cambridgehistory (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Matheus Nucci Mascarenhas (talk · contribs)
[edit]A bunch of selfies of no educational use.
- File:Maria Cristina no Rio de Janeiro.jpg
- File:Londres eu e LUCas.jpg
- File:Lucas com mão engraçada.jpg
- File:Eu e meu pai henrique.jpg
- File:Eu e minha mãe cristina.jpg
Pibwl (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete selfies of non-contributor - out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Two unused selfies, address card, selfie with and inscription and newspaper photograph (probably copyrighted).
Pibwl (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Seems to be personal photos edited to look like posters/music albums. If these are indeed legitimate works then permission from the copyright holders would be needed via COM:OTRS.
- File:Episode 3 - A Force to Be Reckoned With.jpg
- File:Episode 1 - Guerrilla Tactics.jpg
- File:Episode 2 - Agent on a Mission.jpg
- File:Episode 4 - Operation Blackbox.jpg
- File:Video photo - Youtube video shoot.jpg
Howhontanozaz (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete possibly copyvios, not in scope. Elliot321 (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gusttchemestry (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res diagrams without context and text tables that should be in wiki-table format, little educational use, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Msing
[edit]Unused personal sketches/artwork, COM:WEBHOST, little educational use, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objection. I just transferred them from Wikibooks in the past and they appear to no longer be used by any books there. – Adrignola talk 21:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlexMsings (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope. The uploader has tried to make the photos look like album covers but they are just personal photos, out of scope, Commons is not a photo album
- File:AlexMsings Logo.jpg
- File:Alexmsings.jpg
- File:AlexMsings white and black.jpg
- File:AlexMsings.jpg
- File:Foto de AlexMsings.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlexMsings (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal images - out of project scope.
XXN, 19:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlexMsings (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by EULawPubli (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused screenshots and graphic, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy: © 2015 Simon Bierwald / INDEED Photography E4024 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy: © 2015 Simon Bierwald / INDEED Photography E4024 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Watermark implies copyright. E4024 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nicoderno1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No permission
- File:Eytan Pessen Operndirektor.JPG
- File:Operndirektor Eytan Pessen.jpg
- File:Eytan Pessen Consulente artistico.jpg
- File:Eytan Pessen.jpg
Mutter Erde (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused logo. The uploader's only other live global contributions are on Wikidata, where he was blocked indefinitely for promotion. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 07:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Markomarijanovic33 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Pictures taken of images on the PC or TV screen.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:SELFIE. Used in an editor's en.wiki user page. Editor has primarily only edited his own user page. BriefEdits (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:SELFIE. Category:Boys of Nepal is pretty full already. Doubt COM:EDUSE. BriefEdits (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Currently in use on en.wiki by editor with about 5 edits, last one in 2017. Per COM:SELFIE. BriefEdits (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused private gif, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
earlier nominated (and deleted/forgotten?) own work unlikely Basvb (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 23:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal picture by a non-contributer Lymantria (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Educational value is not shown. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
usseless test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused presentation of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio (pic and text) [1] Supertoff (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC) bonjour pouvez-vous me précisez le probleme que pose cette image ? --2A01:CB00:ED6:8300:5CB0:637E:CCAE:C46D 17:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. --Minoraxtalk 08:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope, along with the other upload File:L0l0.jpg. Pibwl (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope, potential copyvio. Elliot321 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
1 pixel height line- doesn't seem to be in a scope. Pibwl (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
7 KB fake own work image of an out of scope person. E4024 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope - seems to be useless. Elliot321 (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Not an own work. E4024 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete since the actual source isn't given, and this looks to be potentially out of scope anyway. Elliot321 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Not an own work. E4024 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete unless a source is given and shown to be acceptable. Elliot321 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Not an own work. No use. E4024 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete potential copyvio and out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Not an own work. No use. E4024 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete potential copyvio and out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope, unused. Pibwl (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
no real educational use, no cat. Pibwl (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be a personal photograph which is not used on any Wikimedia project. I assume this file might be out of scope. This file has also been a target of vandalism. Mosbatho (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be a personal photograph which is not used on any Wikimedia project. I assume this file might be out of scope. Mosbatho (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted logo above the threshold of originality and does not appear to be the uploader's own work. Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a posed promotional shot and is unlikely to be the uploader's own work. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Contributions of a bg:wiki vandal. ShadeOfGrey (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Contributions of a bg:wiki vandal. This is supposed to be an image of a surgeon. ShadeOfGrey (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Louis Dubruel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res diagrams without description, little educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused low-res image of nondescript building interior, little educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused text image/screenshot, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as creator. Sorry for putting this here :) NottNott|talk 21:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, COM:WEBHOST, little educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
out of scope The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope Trade (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiu6oCu9_1daAJF4fooL0XfbqxWlkkgfVOTigZXvxMXH0OmQYaCHM9kPD9q83AasNsC2bLI6B9qKiX91gemXiedhy9KdxANk83CaeSFUwYmUwjTyph7VjsvMFw0dLDjq1DWPP9bpnqjc0EdpYIwMBeJfdtpZIB_1XixrN4Dp6tGmDtoJnmznjsNMNjd_1DdrATMEE1MP8uvmNENUoyVHiIUpqBSL7GgHgIPQW2S5Z60s96s5YXocRhYezyJ3a3MUvtmwp37Te7Ow7kYRF6H4vIB-CKaaapDwuD86nCPdxhEj8uPbKIcU67zG0b30eex041nWXfwix-B&btnG=Pesquisa%20por%20imagem&hl=pt_BR O revolucionário aliado (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Not used. Someone in scope? E4024 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
description: "personal photo of Stephan Said". E4024 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BYLJEDNOUJEDENJEZ (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work". File is lacking EXIF data and is cropped. Howhontanozaz (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work". File is small with lacking EXIF data. Howhontanozaz (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work". Small file with missing EXIF data. Howhontanozaz (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work". Small file with missing EXIF data. Howhontanozaz (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The file was previously deleted because it did not contain permission to use it. Suzy Oh tell me 22:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Not educationally useful 2A00:1370:8129:2E9E:29C0:C7B7:78C:8C41 22:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Used for vandalizm [2]. Хоббит (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused insufficiently described photo of an unidentified woman. Out of scope. ŠJů (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Photographs from unfree pages, with no sign of cc-by-sa licence.
- File:VT642 desiro classic pociąg do kultury kulturzug.jpg
- File:Coral Travel logo.png
- File:Lotnisko zielona góra odloty.jpg
- File:Lotnisko zielona góra przyloty.jpg
- File:Pkp nowy kisielin.jpg
- File:Helmut Gorzów Zastępczy.jpg
- File:Tomasz Gregorczyk.png
- File:Maksymilian Więckowski.png
- File:Jakub Szmajkowski.png
- File:Mateusz Gędek.png
- File:StacjakolejowaLipinkiŁużyckie.png.jpg
Pibwl (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in hy:Պոյնտինգի վեկտոր with TeX equivalent:
![{\displaystyle \mathbf {S=[E\times H]} }](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/26fb9d17eb63795d29497428f714308cc1ddd2b1)
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 19:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not useful as an image. Elliot321 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in hy:Պոյնտինգի վեկտոր with TeX equivalent:
![{\displaystyle \mathbf {S} ={\frac {c}{4\pi }}\mathbf {[E\times H]} }](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/5d7bdfbaf8f8432a21ec5eb1c035f575e46b6306)
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 19:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, should not be an image. Elliot321 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in hy:Պոյնտինգի վեկտոր with TeX equivalent:
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 19:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, should not be an image. Elliot321 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in hy:Պոյնտինգի վեկտոր with TeX equivalent:
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 19:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, should not be an image. Elliot321 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in hy:Պոյնտինգի վեկտոր with TeX equivalent:
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 19:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, should not be an image. Elliot321 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in hy:Պոյնտինգի վեկտոր with TeX equivalent:
![{\displaystyle div\left[{\textbf {EH}}\right]={\textbf {H}}rot{\textbf {E}}-{\textbf {E}}rot{\textbf {H}}}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f640cc6b26eb725b21d2c11c8dd64a5c0eb19903)
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 19:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, should not be an image. Elliot321 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in hy:Պոյնտինգի վեկտոր with TeX equivalent:
![{\displaystyle {\textbf {H}}rot{\textbf {E}}-{\textbf {E}}rot{\textbf {H}}=div[{\textbf {EH}}]=-{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}(\mu _{0}{\textbf {H}}^{2})-{\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}(\epsilon _{0}{\textbf {E}}^{2})}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/bfb47a7e27cb9d5106c6a4a54bd2c0ecb8a2d4fd)
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 19:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, should not be an image. Elliot321 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Weirdly filtered with some kind of fake clouds. Such an photomanipulation is unlikely to have any educational or historic value when non-filtered images like File:Sausalito waterfront.jpg and File:Sausalito.jpg are available. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Elliot321 (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sismarinho as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: fair-use https://www.deviantart.com/berkaycan/art/Sasha-Banks-SmackDown-Women-s-Champion-Edited-PNG-859263893 Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, speedily. It is a recent upload, and not in use, I do not understand why you changed your speedy to normal DR. We have very simple DRs from August (esp. 30.08.2020) waiting to be closed. (Most are "keep" closes, maybe you can give a hand; as I was already involved in those discussions.) --E4024 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Pixabay image uploaded after 2019, license is incompatible with Commons. Please see Template:Pixabay. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Uploaded to Pixabay after 2019 and incompatible with Commons. Please see Template:Pixabay. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
^(sorry if this is the wrong place to comment) I didn't realize anything published to Pixabay after January 9th 2019 wasn't under CC0. Sorry about that! I found an alternative image with CC0 sourced directly from search.creativecommons.org/photos for the wiki page I'm working on, so I'm fine with this image being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amethysticcc (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a photograph by David Higgs and not by Capshaw as claimed by the uploader. See https://magazinec.com/culture/what-is-a-holidate-just-ask-jessica-capshaw/. The photo there is slightly different, but I think they were taken very closely together.. The photo there says "Actor JESSICA CAPSHAW. Photo by David Higgs. Hair by Mark Townsend. Makeup by Georgie Eisdell." 108.56.139.120 22:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
no indication of cc-by-sa licence on source page. Pibwl (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Ymblanter at 20:24, 13 Februar 2021 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MrMaciej --Krdbot 03:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Zawawi Mosque
[edit]The mosque was completed in 1985. There is no freedom of panorama in Oman, permission from the architect is required.
- File:Sultanat Oman - Zawawi-Moschee von Südwest - الزواوي مسجد جنوب غرب - panoramio.jpg
- File:Zawawi Moschee - Al Khuwair Maskat - مسجد الزواوي - الخوير مسقط - panoramio.jpg
- File:Zawawi mosque.jpg
- File:Zawawi Mosque.jpg
- File:Zawawi-Moschee in Maskat - الزواوي المسجد، مسقط - panoramio.jpg
- File:Zawawi-Moschee von Nordost - الزواوي مسجد شمال شرق - panoramio.jpg
- File:Zawawi-Moschee von Südwest - panoramio.jpg
- File:جامع الزواوي في مسقط.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No FOP in IRAN 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No FOP in IRAN 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No FOP in IRAN. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No FOP in AZERBAIJAN 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 00:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No FOP in IRAN 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Non free image taken from a website. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's a copyright violation. Speedy deletion required. chanseyMesajYaz 12:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chansey (talk • contribs) 12:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGING the photo violates production company's copyright. Taivo (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I doubt the own work claim of an occasional user. This image looks like taken from a copyrighted page (http://yourcinema.azurewebsites.net/Actors/1818006/elisha-kriis) and the colour of her dress manipulated. I would normally not exaggerate this much, but the same-name file has been deleted before and this one has no camera EXIF. E4024 (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Copied from Commons:Help desk:
Someone has edited photos I have taken and uploaded them under my name. These photos were not supposed to be published like this.
Also, the caption is not correct, it was not a photo and press event.
This is the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elisha_Kriis.jpg
With all the delete options, can I use speedydelete here?
How do I remove my name from the caption, as I did not upload this.
I am happy to write the correct info, and upload a photo that is suitable for publishing. I just registered after I discovered this, and am completely new here. Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eseavey7 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
END Copied from Commons:Help desk:
It seems pretty clear that User:Jared19921j is not Eric Seavey, so Jared's claim of "own work" is false, and Jared acknowledges that this is Eric Seavey's photo. I'm going to delete right now, in the unlikely event that I'm wrong we can undelete.
@Eseavey7: it might be useful to contact the COM:OTRS team with evidence that you are Eric Seavey (and to say so at User:Eseavey7) so that similar matters become easier in the future. - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Given the discussion here, this seems certain to be a copyvio, no need to wait. Uploaded has had almost a month to respond. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I am suspicious of this well-shot low-res file with no EXIF data from a user with no other photographic contributions, of an actress for whom we have repeatedly had copyvio uploads (though not of this particular photo). I think this at least calls for VRT given those many past copyvios. Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. VRT permission needed. Yann (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Needs either a free license via VRT or an upload of the original image at full camera resolution with full EXIF. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
写真の公開を停止したい為 六人目の審査員 (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, insufficient reason for deletion, file is in use on 3 pages on 2 wikis. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
不適切な画像があるため つったりん (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion: uploader requested deletion within 7 days from upload. --Yasu (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Can this be the own work of a one-time-only visitor? Probably a derivative work. E4024 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing EXIF, could be found on Facebook. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no source (No source since).
Source is here now: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iraq 2016.jpg. E4024 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 14:50, 7 März 2021 UTC: Insufficient or doubtful author or license; OTRS validation required (F1): Could be found on Facebook --Krdbot 20:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Google image search finds multiple matches before upload, for example depicted person's site https://www.carabelea.ro/ . If this is photo of poster, then there's no freedom of panorama in Romania. Taivo (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 11:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused depiction of nudity, not better quality than other images. Elliot321 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused depiction of nudity, not better quality than other images. Elliot321 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused depiction of nudity, not better quality than other images. Was previously part of a failed mass-nomination of an entire category, but this is unused, unlike many of others in its parent category. Elliot321 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused depiction of nudity, not better quality than other images. Was previously part of a failed mass-nomination of an entire category, but this is unused, unlike many of others in its parent category. Elliot321 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused low-quality nudity. Elliot321 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted image with no indication that it is licensed for use on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete source website claims copyright. Elliot321 (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Derivative with no valid source for the original photo. It is impossible that the photo is the own work of the claimed author, as the subject of the photo died some 16 years before the claimed author was born. The photo might be PD-Canada if it was published by the government, but a source would be useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This video is not CC and it seems that it never was Gikü (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Gikü, I can't say for sure about the license. This was one of my first downloads using YouTube. I wrote an email to the author of this video asking him to change the license of this video. Hope he does it, because I would like to save this image for the Wikipedia project. Thank you for your attention. — Felix Montana (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Certainly not the own work of the claimed author because the photo was taken seven years before the claimed author was born. This is either a press photo or a CIPP photo. Might be freely licensed for other reasons but needs true authorship information and evidence of permission. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Obviously a copy of a printed press photo. No valid source. False claim of own work. The uploader cannot possibly be the author, as the photo was taken 17 years before he was born. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This photograph is still copyrighted in the UK, while this image is still public domain in the US. Frontman830 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Frontman830, Wilding was certainly English. I think you must be relying on the idea that the United Kingdom is the “source country”, but the photograph appears to have been taken in New York and was certainly published there before 1926. To make your case for deleting it, you would need to get to the bottom of what “source country” means and then show that in this case that is not the US. Moonraker (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note the image has appeared on the Main Page, see here. A lot of care is taken with images before that happens. Moonraker (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Source country is US not UK. The nominator Frontman830, a quite recent editor, so needs to be more carful because they have nominated quite a number PD files in apparent drive-by nominations. Please take more care and familiarise yourself with copyright much better. Copyright is quite complex and can take some time, even years, to understand fully. Ww2censor (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence that this "Dakars" language (supposedly from Chile) exists, and in any case, it doesn't have a Wikipedia version. --ghouston (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Own work? E4024 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: vague DR, but deleted due to poor reliability of uploader, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MasqueIV. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this the same deleted file? Does not look like an "own work" indeed. E4024 (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: yes, previously deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MasqueIV. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Image is continually placed by User:FlameBaggin on the article Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez High School. An ASB president of a high school from 2019 is not at all encyclopedic or worth inclusion on the wiki article nor as a commons image, especially with the poor categorization it has and lack of us anywhere on wikipedia. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Probably not even an "own work" as claimed. --E4024 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Who is she? What is the scope? Will we open our pages to anyone/everyone who opens up their coats? E4024 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- BTW this small file w/o camera EXIF was left here by a one-time-visitor whose "own work" claim does not look very credible to me. --E4024 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry PetrusTheGrape (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: not that bad. And more importantly, in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry PetrusTheGrape (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: acceptable quality. Renominate if a better quality image supersedes this one. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
False date, false source, false claim of authorship, false claim of copyright ownership, false licensing. The uploader did not create this image, which shows the subject probably years before the uploader was born. The fact that the uploader reused this image does not allow him to conceal its real source or whitewash it. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Is he someone in scope? Not used, no cats... E4024 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Historical photos, missing original author, source, date, and permission. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This was taken from a newspaper or internet site as understood from the description. E4024 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, transmission code in EXIF. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Possible CopyVio, no author or proper source is given besides a direct link to the image, no indication of original licensing Di (they-them) (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Cropping error Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: resolved: new version upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
no permission Mutter Erde (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
w:Charlotte Berend-Corinth (25 May 1880 – 10 January 1967), copyright violation Mutter Erde (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Undelete in 2038. --Strakhov (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
w:Charlotte Berend-Corinth (25 May 1880 – 10 January 1967), copyright violation Mutter Erde (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Undelete in 2038. --Strakhov (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The same photo is also available without the superimposed non-encyclopedic statement 109.71.220.186 10:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mai Diallo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Paintings are by Maribel Nazco who is apparently still alive. Needs her permission and license confirmation via COM:OTRS.
Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. COM:OTRS permission from copyright owner (the artist) is needed here. --Strakhov (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement (fair use) belonging to Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Mantr33r (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Elliot321 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 22:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP SK, there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. This statue was completed in 2014.
ƏXPLICIT 06:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Clearly not own work. In addition, the GIF was uploaded after Tony DeAngelo's waiving by the New York Rangers, which implies that this GIF is meant to make the player look bad. Sabbatino (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Focuses too prominently on copyrighted artwork, not de minimis ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- In its practical and basic sense, it is no different than this similar image on Wikimedia Commons from a different uploader from the 2001 game. [3] If this image is in question, both should be questioned. Doctorindy (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. COM:DW is quite clear. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
30 KB dubious own work. (Please also see previous deletions of files by the same uploader.) E4024 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo at 08:54, 12 April 2021 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MasqueIV --Krdbot 13:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
COM:DW of a copyrighted mascot character. https://www.corolla-si.com/naradeha/corolucky Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- It was uploaded by Toyota Corolla Shin-Ibaraki Co., Ltd., which manages the mascot, and employees who belong to its management department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryu1kun (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- If so, you put the image on https://www.corolla-si.com/naradeha/corolucky , and write "This image is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license." near it. (In Japanese, "この画像はCC BY-SA 4.0ライセンスで利用可能です。")
- This will make it clear the permission to use that image. I think this is a good idea. What do you think? --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment Ryu1kunさんへ：トヨタカローラ新茨城株式会社がこのキャラクターの著作権や商標権をもっておられるなら、公式キャラクターのページなどに「この画像はCC BY-SA 4.0ライセンスで利用可能です。」と書いていただければ、削除依頼を存続で閉じることができます。File:Corolucky.pngも同様にしていただいたほうが良いです。ただし、もし御社に所属していないイラストレーターに外注した画像であれば、そのイラストレータが著作権を保持している可能性があるのでご注意ください。--miya (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: no proof of permission after 30+ days. Post undeletion request after concerns become cleared. --Yasu (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
商標マークを付ける事を忘れてしまった為、再度修正してアップする Ryu1kun (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment 修正版をアップロードする場合、画像ページ下部の「このファイルの新しい版をアップロードする」というリンクから投稿すれば前の版を削除することなく上書きアップロードが可能です。--miya (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Yasu. --Gbawden (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
"for use in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia GYA projects" is not compatible with Commons. Files here must be available for any reuse even commercial. Also lacks evidence of permission from copyright holder via COM:OTRS. Howhontanozaz (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
"for use in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia GYA projects" is not compatible with Commons. Files here must be available for any reuse even commercial. Also lacks evidence of permission from copyright holder via COM:OTRS. Howhontanozaz (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
"for use in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia GYA projects" is not compatible with Commons. Files here must be available for any reuse even commercial. Also lacks evidence of permission from copyright holder via COM:OTRS.
- File:Mohammad Basith.jpg
- File:Md Ismail Tareque.jpg
- File:Md. Atiar Rahman.jpg
- File:Biswas Dybendu.jpg
- File:Ahmed IMTIAJ.jpg
- File:Ahmed H. Kabir.jpg
Howhontanozaz (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
G7. Author or uploader request deletion. Some error in map and the file is not used. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 07:04, 17 Mai 2021 UTC: G7. Author or uploader request deletion. Some error in map and the file is not used. --Krdbot 13:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Facebook file. Do we accept Facebook files, yes or no? E4024 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion : authorship not challenged. — Racconish 💬 11:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
File copied from Facebook, see metadata. Yann (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
unused file. Looks like some sort of personal results record. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work". Subject in the photo and uploader seem to be the same individual. Uploader acknowledges that the photo was shot in a studio. Needs permission from the copyright holder via COM:OTRS. Howhontanozaz (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader is likely to have, or know the legal status of, rights to their own image. Elliot321 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Copyright lies with the photographer, not the subject of the photo. --✗plicit 23:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
G7. Author or uploader request deletion. A better svg version File:Mong Mao-the detail map.svg exist 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio on 07:04, 17 May 2021. -M.nelson (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
G7. Author or uploader request deletion. A better svg version File:Mong Mao.svg exist 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio on 07:04, 17 May 2021. -M.nelson (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a stock photo. Low quality with watermark from a separate site and is only in use on a hi.wiki user page. Potential copyvio? BriefEdits (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete looks like a commercial image -M.nelson (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is in the public domain. There is no evidence that it is, and looking at the Smithsonian's copyright information for their collection, it is entirely possible that it is not https://npg.si.edu/rights-reproductions SecretName101 (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Source explicitly states "Usage Conditions Apply", which, per the Smithsonian Terms of Use means "You may not use any Content with usage conditions for commercial purposes, unless you have first obtained permission from the Smithsonian museum or program responsible for the Content and any others rightsholder." The image is not free. --Animalparty (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Animalparty. RoanDM (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note The same image is also uploaded at File:Michael Dukakis color photograph (cropped).png (deletion nom Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Dukakis color photograph (cropped).png) -M.nelson (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Animalparty - no evidence of the CC license; commercial re-use prohibited. -M.nelson (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
promotional unused logo of dubious notability. Pibwl (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted logo which exceeds COM:TOO Spain. Monochrome version seen on camaramadrid.es in this 2010 archive. -M.nelson (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
private logo, used only in sandbox, of dubious notability. Pibwl (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
random, unused, uncategorized photo of a dog's back of head. Pibwl (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination although not a bad photo. --Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 1995, there is no freedom of panorama in Morocco, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in Morocco -M.nelson (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 1995, there is no freedom of panorama in Morocco, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep more than 3/4 of the image is of the sky; the mosque is not the main component of the image, which is the threshold for FOP here. --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per Goldsztajn, meet DM in this country. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete In my opinion the mosque is still the main component of the image, without it the image would be a completely different work. -M.nelson (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 1995, there is no freedom of panorama in Morocco, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in Morocco -M.nelson (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 1995, there is no freedom of panorama in Morocco, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in Morocco -M.nelson (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 1975, there is no freedom of panorama in Morocco, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in Morocco -M.nelson (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Replaced in ar:إجراء عام (ديناميكا حرارية) with TeX equivalent:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2016.jpg_نصب_الشهيد.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2018.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_3.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_33.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2016.jpg_%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%A8_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%AF.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2016.jpg_%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%A8_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%AF.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2016.jpg_نصب_الشهيد.png){kind=link}
_2016.jpg_نصب_الشهيد.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2018.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2018.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2018.jpg){kind=link}
_2018.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2021-02-03T04:11:00.000Z-File:El_Mejor_Superheore,_Flash.png){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SuperBowl_XXXV_(back_of_Raymond_James_Stadium_scoreboard).jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
Now unused image that should not be an image WIKImaniac 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, should not be an image. Elliot321 (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brazil_Ranch_Big_Sur_c1890.tif -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, redundant per uploader -M.nelson (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep They are different images. The one in the deletion request is a wider shot. If anything the cropped version should be deleted, but IMO both should be kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per Adamant. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP SK, there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. This statue was completed in 2010. ƏXPLICIT 07:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sans droit sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Photo is in use at fr:Quartiers du Vieux-Tours -M.nelson (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sans droit sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Photo is in use at fr:Quartiers du Vieux-Tours -M.nelson (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sans droit sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Photo is in use at fr:Quartiers du Vieux-Tours -M.nelson (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sans droit sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Photo is in use at fr:Quartiers du Vieux-Tours -M.nelson (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio manifeste de https://ici.radio-canada.ca/premiere/emissions/l-actuel/segments/entrevue/100601/fuat-seker-journaliste-sport-lutte-greco-romaine, (c) Radio Canada JohnNewton8 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
A mon avis un cas pour suppression rapide. – IMO a case for rapid deletion. --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)- We now received an email from an official address of Radio Canada for Ticket:2021020210009739. There are still two questions open, but everything now looks like it will turn out fine. Please allow for some time. --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I have just accepted permission for “File:Fuat-seker-lutte-kurde-france-journaliste.webp” under ticket:2021020210009739. --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- OTRS Permission is now OK. On the source site, there is now a note as well that picture is licensed under cc-ba-sa-4.0 --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Text on a yellow background is not original enough to count as a work of art. If the issue is the partial Fauci face then that can be cropped out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The opener of this discussion does not specify anything in the photo that would violate U.S. law, which allows for architectural FoP. I cannot identify any non-architectural items in photo that would bring up potential copyright concerns in the absence of FoP. The opening party has not stated what they might be, so I see no reason to consider deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, since no adequate reasoning has been provided for a deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TucanHolmes (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - It's absolutely a literary and artistic artwork which is not on a fixed display. There's no FoP provisions for such artwork in the US. STSC (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Quoting above: "It's absolutely a literary and artistic artwork" Response: a yellow sticker with prose written on it is not literary artwork nor is it 'artistic artwork'. Is 'artistic artwork' a real category? No it is not: words are being thrown around without regard to the meaning of the those words. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete@Chipmunkdavis, Mikehawk10, and TucanHolmes: This can't be benefit from COM:DM as the protest letter is the key part of this image and the blurred parts are not. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- I did not mention de minimis, I'm not sure it's relevant here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep --Ooligan (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: Why? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis, Mikehawk10, and TucanHolmes: The yellow “boycott” sticker does not meet the Threshold of originality. This file is used on two pages currently and can be cropped if needed. The U.S. FoP does not apply to a street light/ utility pole in a public right-of-way and the original nomination for deletion was thus not warranted. De minimus does not apply here due to lack of Threshold of originality. Please, note this file may contain sensitive political content according to the Communist Party of China. “GENOCIDE” against the Uyghur people has been stated in public by both the former (Mike Pompeo) and current Secretary of State of the United States (Antony Blinken). --Ooligan (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: Both COM:TOO China COM:TOO Taiwan are at least lower than US, calligraphic works may be copyrighted by Sinophone areas, are you sure that this is not **originally made** in Sinophone areas? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Do you have proof that this sticker was “ **originally made** in Sinophone area?” --Ooligan (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: Yes I recently got an e-mail from a Taiwanese user, that the original version of this protest card is made in Taiwan, I'll send an OTRS confirmation email when I have enough time. —-Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Please, explain what process you intend to use related to “an ORTS confirmation email” within this existing deletion request. Can you show me another example (link) of using an ORTS process within an open/ active Deletion Request? Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- For FoP cases we usually follow the law of the country where the work is located - which happens to be the United States. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: Yes I recently got an e-mail from a Taiwanese user, that the original version of this protest card is made in Taiwan, I'll send an OTRS confirmation email when I have enough time. —-Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Do you have proof that this sticker was “ **originally made** in Sinophone area?” --Ooligan (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: Both COM:TOO China COM:TOO Taiwan are at least lower than US, calligraphic works may be copyrighted by Sinophone areas, are you sure that this is not **originally made** in Sinophone areas? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis, Mikehawk10, and TucanHolmes: The yellow “boycott” sticker does not meet the Threshold of originality. This file is used on two pages currently and can be cropped if needed. The U.S. FoP does not apply to a street light/ utility pole in a public right-of-way and the original nomination for deletion was thus not warranted. De minimus does not apply here due to lack of Threshold of originality. Please, note this file may contain sensitive political content according to the Communist Party of China. “GENOCIDE” against the Uyghur people has been stated in public by both the former (Mike Pompeo) and current Secretary of State of the United States (Antony Blinken). --Ooligan (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There is no basis for assuming that the yellow sticker is eligible for any copyright or trademark protections, given that it uses freely available fonts to convey a plaintext message. Of note is that the other sticker is from here, and if we're really worried about its presence in the photo we could either reach out to the artist for permission on that page, or simply crop the photo as others have recommended. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and close this unnecessary DR. Dear A1Cafel, please do not exaggerate. E4024 (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep A bit borderline, but I don't think there is enough text to be copyrightable. The Fauci cartoon is an incidental inclusion falling under COM:DM, but can also be cropped if desired. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
doesn't seem to be in a scope, along with File:LR--6489 (15714739016).jpg - no real educational use, no cat. since almost 2 years. Pibwl (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Starting second DR for the second one (no template was on it). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photographer Wolff von Gudenberg (1890-1961), copyright violation Mutter Erde (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- The photograph was taken prior to 1926 (1924) so there is no copyright despite the photographers birth and deathdate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvet-twenties (talk • contribs) 07:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep but move to en.wikipedia. Because the image is dated 1924, it is out of copyright in the US, but not yet in its home country (Germany?) The solution is to move it to en.wikipedia, and use template {{PD-US-expired-abroad|DATE OF EXPIRY IN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN}} Storye book (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 16:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
No evidence provided to support the claim that this is PD or the author is actually unknown, given the source is a random pinterest page. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Nick-D. The image can not only be found on pinterest, but many places on the internet, as early as 2011, see here. I've provided the pinterest URL because I had to provide a random one. The fact that the image has been used for so many years and has never received a copyright-strike, I'd say, makes it pretty clear that nobody owns it. I don't see why Wikipedia would be an exception out of all those websites. Lupishor (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Commons (and Wikipedia) require positive proof that images are in the public domain or have been released under a suitable licence, and takes a conservative attitude to this. In this instance, information from a reliable source about the image's providence and status is needed. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. --Rosenzweig τ 16:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
copyright violating scan from newspaper. 85.212.54.254 10:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Question If the newspaper was published in 1948, when would it fall into public domain? Still 70 years after the author's death? Courtesy link COM:GERMANY. -M.nelson (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Text is below the threshold of originality, {{PD-text}}. --Rosenzweig τ 16:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Com:IDENT, consent required. Further: We are not a web host or social media site. Tinder of Facebook may be the better place. No improvement.
- File:Babydoll ewa6.jpg
- File:Babydoll ewa4.jpg
- File:Babydoll ewa5.jpg
- File:Babydoll ewa3.jpg
- File:Babydoll ewa2.jpg
- File:Babydoll ewa1.jpg
- File:Black bra gstring.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - This editor has plastered his wife everywhere and as such they're essentially treating this as another porno site, We're not a porn site and so these should be deleted. –Davey2010Talk 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
All images are out of scope and realistically won't be used, I feel this editor is here for one reason and that reason is to upload "erotic/porno" images ..... Whilst they have uploaded other images they used to primarily focus on these sorts of images before being repeatedly blocked for the erotic images, IMHO there's no educational use for any of the erotic images and we already have better and more appropriate images of everything in this list, Thanks,
- File:Neckholder top.jpg
- File:Ordinary white bra.jpg
- File:White lace bra.jpg
- File:Underwire white bra.jpg
- File:Brasserie white bra.jpg
- File:Molded white bra.jpg
- File:Nipples erection.jpg
- File:White bra.jpg
- File:Soft bra.jpg
- File:Babydoll white.jpg
- File:Suspender tights back.jpg
- File:Suspender tights.jpg
- File:Half corset black.jpg
- File:Depilated pubic area.jpg
- File:Naked woman with earring.jpg
- File:Tanga panties back.jpg
- File:Tanga panties front.jpg
- File:Woman in bed.jpg
- File:Spider veins begininnig2.jpg
- File:Spider veins begininnig.jpg
- File:Telangiectasia right thigh.jpg
- File:Telangiectasia left thigh.jpg
- File:Spider veins.jpg
- File:Venulectasias.jpg
- File:Female torso.jpg
- File:Sweater V neckline.jpg
- File:High-cut briefs.jpg
- File:Breasts 85C size.jpg
- File:Breasts size 85C.jpg
- File:Red blazer.jpg
- File:Female torso breasts.jpg
- File:Push up bra swimsuit.jpg
- File:Lingerie set pink.jpg
- File:Lingerie set pink2.jpg
- File:Palm leaf hat.jpg
- File:Lace white boyshorts.jpg
- File:Summer blazer.jpg
- File:Summer blazer2.jpg
- File:Two piece dress.jpg
- File:Cocktail dress dark red.jpg
- File:Cocktail dress red violet.jpg
- File:Vibrator penis shape.jpg
- File:Vibrator modern shape.jpg
- File:Geisha balls pink.jpg
- File:Bolero and cocktail dress.jpg
- File:Red evening dress christmas tree.jpg
- File:Menopause and before.jpg
- File:MILF inflatable boat Croatia.jpg
- File:Woman and Kravica waterfall.jpg
- File:Bath place at Krka waterfalls.jpg
- File:Kravica waterfall on Trebižat river.jpg
- File:Bath place at Krka waterfalls 2.jpg
–Davey2010Talk 00:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Is mass DR nominating compatible with the etiquette of Wikimedia? Is eg these photos are erotic / pornographic File:Telangiectasia left thigh.jpg File:Kravica waterfall on Trebižat river.jpg? Is the preventive censorship of articles in polish Wikipedia consistent with good customs? Should not we wait to remove the contested photos from Wikimedia Commons? I wonder if Davey2010's actions are being taken in the interest of Wikimedia's quality or is it his personal crusade? Nominating photos for removal is acceptable. But I do not agree with the removal of editing Wikipedia articles that have been accepted by other administrators. And the last question, why this photo is DR re-nominated File:Menopause and before.jpg? Regards Stan old (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Yes it is, Nope no crusade here - Whilst we appreciate all images here some aren't compatible with this website - Many many images here are of better quality than the ones you've uploaded and in that respect are easily replaceable. –Davey2010Talk 00:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Just to note a few of the images in this list have already been uploaded as a few of the names in the previous DR. –Davey2010Talk 00:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope images, User has repeatedly been told not to upload these sorts of images due to previous problems where they were treating this as a pornography site, That aside IMHO we have much better quality images in the respective categories, Thanks
- File:Cindy black-gold lingerie set.jpg
- File:Shaved female pubic hair.jpg
- File:Moles on the back of a naked woman.jpg
- File:Natural female pubic hairs.jpg
- File:Puffy nipples.jpg
- File:Mature lady with saggy breasts.jpg
- File:Standing woman and her reflection in the mirror.jpg
- File:Back view of the naked mature redhead woman.jpg
- File:Black lingerie set.jpg
- File:Modern basque side view.jpg
- File:Slender middle-aged woman naked.jpg
- File:Trimmed pubic hair.jpg
- File:Breasts navel pubic tattoos.jpg
- File:Cellulite on skin of breast.jpg
- File:Female genital tattoo.jpg
- File:Shyanne Williams.jpg
- File:Spiders on the thigh of 42 yo caucasian woman.jpg
- File:Cellulite of 42yo woman.jpg
- File:Scar tissues on stomach.jpg
- File:Breasts ptosis of middle aged woman.jpg
- File:Sarah Elizabeth Windsor.png
- File:In the pink 14.jpg
–Davey2010Talk 21:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. AshFriday (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom (and this is not CindyPedia). Wutsje 23:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination which is trying to say "Commons is not an amateur porn site". --Mhhossein talk 17:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
User is banned from uploading images of their wife (sexual or not), Out of scope, Thanks,
- File:Suspender tights.jpg
- File:Breasts of 39yo woman.jpg
- File:Back view of white babydoll.jpg
- File:Ewa and her breasts flashing in park.jpg
- File:Naked woman with a deep scar on abdomen.jpg
- File:Mature woman with breasts ptosis.jpg
- File:Breasts ptosis saggy tits.jpg
- File:Breasts of 50yo woman.jpg
- File:Breasts of 47yo woman.jpg
File:Cosmetic skin mask for cleavage.jpgFile:Face cosmetic mask.jpg- File:Breast ptosis.jpg
–Davey2010Talk 22:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all unused and out-of-scope. Elliot321 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- This should be on a case-by-case basis, how many pictures of nude women in their 50's (fiftiesj) or 40's (forties) do we even have on Wikimedia Commons? Most images I find are of women in their early 20's (twenties), there seems to be a strong bias here for "attractive" young women unless it's an older work of art (primarily paintings). Perhaps first categorise these into nude women by age and then see if this holds up (as in if these images are of better quality). Furthermore, how many scarred Slavic women in their 50's do we have? It may seem specific and I think that most are out of scope but "File:Naked woman with a deep scar on abdomen.jpg" could be useful. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Donald Trung 『徵國單』 "there seems to be a strong bias here for "attractive" young women unless it's an older work of art " - You couldn't be any more wrong here - If this was a young blonde we'd still be here now, Stan for years has used this site as an amateur porn site and he's done the exact same with his Flickr page. I'm certainly not on a crusade against Stan or porn images - This is purely because as I said Stan uses this site as a amateur porn site. Realistically I don't believe his images will be used and if they were they'd IMHO be used on a porno site. –Davey2010Talk 15:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the history and per everybody else. Donald Trung can use Google search to see "scarred Slavic women in their 50's" if that is such a meaningful context. Stop treating every naked image as a sacred bone please. There is no anti-nudity crusade here but only an exhibitionist old man. E4024 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't claim that there was an "anti-nudity crusade" here, for example looking at the page "Category:Close-up photographs of topless women's breasts" would show that there are plenty of images of better quality than "File:Breasts of 50yo woman.jpg", but a nude woman with a scar like the aforementioned image isn't one we have multiple of. We should be looking at the content by itself for its educational value, not place everything in the same box because it comes from the same source. I'd like to add that "Category:Nude women in Poland" doesn't contain a single image of a modern colour photograph of a nude Polish woman where she is the primary subject of the picture. A realistic case use for the file would be in a book dedicated to nude female bodies from all over the world or how a person can look nude with such a scar. I simply say that the images should probably be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I took a pre-emptive measure. :) You will know better your past edits about nudity issues. Here not, but..? BTW the said thing ("scarred Slavic women in their 50's") has no educational value. It does not. BTW, remember, this old man had a sock, Mark something? "If I remember well", you defended one of their deleted nudes for middle age fat whatsoever woman (anus) image. (I added the "anus" part. I am still trying to understand the educational value. Perhaps she had hemorrhoids... :) E4024 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi E4024, I had asked at ANU for an indef block but so far haven't received a reply. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete As he is known to psychologically mistreat his here pictured wife(?) with those Images. I.e. creating montages on flicker with her next to a younger semi nude man, captioning it as "Mother f...s her son" and alike. Sorry to be this rather graphic, but I don't want anyone to make their own stuff up.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I've struck File:Face cosmetic mask.jpg as we only have 9 files in all of facial masks - Given the file isn't sexual in any way I see no problems with keeping, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I was pinged in a related DR and ended up here. To be very clear, i.m.o. there’s only two ways about this:
- Either there is any sort of evidence (and the threshold is low — I didn’t check all these photos nor their Flickr originals, but the filenames alone here on Commons give out a sizeable creep vibe) that this photographer/uploader is in any way infringing on the rights of these models, either at the time of photographing or later on, and therefore these should be deleted speedily by an admin, trumping any matters of scope and/or reuse,
- or not, and therefore these should be kept and the usual assortment of anti-nudity crusaders and kibitzers in general should stop misrepresenting policy and wasting everybody’s time.
- Either there is any sort of evidence (and the threshold is low — I didn’t check all these photos nor their Flickr originals, but the filenames alone here on Commons give out a sizeable creep vibe) that this photographer/uploader is in any way infringing on the rights of these models, either at the time of photographing or later on, and therefore these should be
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Or the third option: Stan should stop socking and most certainly should stop treating this project like an amateur porn site. My biggest guess is that none of the models here probably ever consented to having their images uploaded here anyway.
- As I've stated on the other DR I'm all happy for nudity to be here I've never once gone on a crusade and I would hope people who participate here previously aren't on one either as that's not why I'm/we're here. –Davey2010Talk 17:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Through enough investigation, good timing, and rearrangement, I found enough images to make an OK-size category containing facial masks. To be honest, though, the problem is that for such a popular type of product, both the imagery on Commons and the articles on Wikipedia are utterly lacking. I was worried that a different-but-related image, File:Decolette mask.jpg, may have been uploaded in violation of the model's privacy, but the Flickr posts and long-term sockpuppetry ease me of those concerns (a cropped version is directly in use on the English Wikipedia). I take no position on the remaining images. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm surprised we don't have a lot more images either to be honest. Unless it's a copyvio or the model requests deletion then if it's COM:INUSE it has to stay. Given there's no replacement available here it'll have to stay so I've struck that file too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: I kept some that could conceivably be used or where we don't have many like them and deleted others where he could be taking advantage of the person depicted (per Tuvalkin). --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as w:en:Help:Table to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
small logo, one of two uploads, apparently promotional, used in sandbox only. Pibwl (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Logobluesclub-ok avec texte et fonte cheri liney sans club lettres penchées noir-blanc.png
[edit]
promotional unused logo of dubious notability. Pibwl (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Dubious "own" work Mutter Erde (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Question The description states "from a 1918 program brochure of Tiefland, published in 1918 by the Dresden Hofoper", might it be in the public domain? -M.nelson (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Per nomination and can be undeleted safely 120 years after the image was taken, which will be 1918+120=2038. If more info is available about the photographer or the exact date the photo was taken, it might be undeleted earlier. --Elly (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation. While the performance of this piece is not protected by copyright, the composition of Sleigh Ride was published in 1948 and its copyright was renewed. Mysterymanblue 06:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 1966, there is no freedom of panorama in Morocco, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Would there be a way in the future to notify the uploaders/authors of these pictures (E.g. MAMMAgroup in this case), that they can upload pictures directly to Wikipedia pages instead of Commons as an alternative? (e.g. by including a link to Multiproject upload or whatever other page is helpful.) I'm assuming this is possible in at least some cases since it was done at the Hassan II Mosque pages. Otherwise, if this is applied consistently then a slew of pages about modern attractions and mundane buildings across Morocco and elsewhere would be deprived of images without most editors being aware of alternatives that allow them to still improve the encyclopedia(s) visually. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Also pinging إيان here in case this is of interest. R Prazeres (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, R Prazeres This is a GLAM issue. MAMMA. is an architectural archive in Casablanca and provided this image for us. Fuzheado, are there any exceptions that can be made in this situation? إيان (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Also pinging إيان here in case this is of interest. R Prazeres (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I can add much to this discussion, but I've pinged some folks in the Wiki World Heritage User Group to see if they might be able to help. Thanks. -- Fuzheado (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and undelete in 2073. Artist died in 2003, see frJean-François Zevaco). --Elly (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Non free image based originally off sources from the Municipal website. Copyright is stated on municipal website. Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - To aviod copyvio conflict and other possible issues, this file should be removed. There is a SVG version based off a blazon from another website. Blazons cannot be copyrighted. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I made a png / copy of an .svg file thinking it was original. The reason I created this .png is because the SVG version had 94 errors. So I made a png and moved it to the wiki articles. Later I discovered the .svg (that I copied from Cookieman1.1.1's file to png) was a copyvio by Cookieman1.1.1, - who took the exact image from the city's webiste. "Copyright is stated on the municipal website"? Really? Yeah. That's why the .svg you uploaded is marked for deletion for copyvio. See This and the .svg are both marked for deletion --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Of course which is the reason I redid it and based the new version off its blazon and not the design. Please check your pings and respond to them --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and request about the svg version COM:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.svg. --Elly (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Per the description in the linked ca:Goigs article, this "goigs" is a work of en:Jaume Busquets (1903—1968). Although it is public domain in the US because it was published in 1921, it is not PD in its home country of Spain until 2039 (70 pma: 1968+70+1=2039) 2049 (80 pma: 1968+80+1=2049). Howhontanozaz (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Changed the PD date to 80 pma since "works of authors who died before 7 December 1987 are dealt with by the 1879 law, which sets a protection time of 80 years post mortem auctoris." per COM:SPAIN. Howhontanozaz (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 20:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The file is the flag of Hong Kong Police's Marine Region, in which COM:TOO HK mentioned that Hong Kong threshold of originality is very low. Given by the fact that the Australian Aboriginal Flag (also a simple flag) is ruled to be copyrightable in Australia (which is also a common law jurisdiction), it is speculated that the file is likely to be copyrigtable in Hong Kong as well. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @廣九直通車: But then, the SAR flags and emblems are either {{PD-PRC-exempt}} or {{OGL3}}, why both can't apply too? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Please remember that the current Hong Kong regional flag and emblem are a component of Hong Kong's Basic Law (a Chinese national law extended to Hong Kong, see s:zh:中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法#香港特别行政区区旗、区徽图案). As a result, they are in public domain because of {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. But thanks to Hong Kong government copyright and threshold of originality requirement, the flag in the file is still copyrightable, and fails the basic licensing requirement of Commons—both free in U.S. (of course) and the source country/jurisdiction (not), regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @廣九直通車: Under these circumstances, the HK flags of UK-controlled era are also beyond TOO, as well as the still-existing BNO passports, aren't they? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: 参照File:Flag of Hong Kong (1959–1997).svg（港英旗的最后版本），由英国纹章院设计，因此归英国版权法管，因{{PD-UKGov}}而进入公有领域。而根据英文维基百科有关的档案页，英国政府对BNO护照的政府版权授权并不包含制作衍生作品的权利，因此在英文维基百科以合理使用上传。
- 个人的意见认为被提删的档案已经超越了香港的版权门槛，唯一可争辩的论点就是这货是不是在香港仍然有版权，还是在出版后假以时日而进入了香港的公有领域。
Info最后顺带一提，1997年版权条例（第528章）制定前，香港适用经旧版权条例（第39章）作适应化更改的英国1956年版权法（4 & 5 Eliz. 2 c. 74），谨此注意。廣九直通車 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @廣九直通車: Under these circumstances, the HK flags of UK-controlled era are also beyond TOO, as well as the still-existing BNO passports, aren't they? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: Please remember that the current Hong Kong regional flag and emblem are a component of Hong Kong's Basic Law (a Chinese national law extended to Hong Kong, see s:zh:中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法#香港特别行政区区旗、区徽图案). As a result, they are in public domain because of {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. But thanks to Hong Kong government copyright and threshold of originality requirement, the flag in the file is still copyrightable, and fails the basic licensing requirement of Commons—both free in U.S. (of course) and the source country/jurisdiction (not), regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep The Australian Aboriginal Flag case is not directly translatable to Hong Kong. The nomination is presumptuous at best. Fry1989 eh? 20:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Fry1989: I searched for more local court cases, and found a case decided by the Hong Kong High Court (Fossil, Inc. v Trimset Ltd. and ors. ([2003 3 HKLRD 11))], the court decided that:
"Original" refers to the original skill or labour that is employed in executing the work. ... The requirement is that the work must emanate from the author in the sense that it must not be copied from another work, although it may be classified as "original" even though use has been made of existing material.
— Ian Carlson, in: Fossil, Inc. v Trimset Ltd. and ors. ([2003] 3 HKLRD 11)
- In other words, the court upholds the traditional "skill and labour" doctrine in common law countries.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Beyond COM:TOO HK. Hong Kong TOO is low In this regard, it must be remembered that the requirement of originality is a low one....The author may draw on existing material, so long as more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill and judgment have been expended in the creation of the work. The standard required is a low one, but the effort must not be as trivial as to be characterised as a purely mechanical exercise. The skill and effort protected is not only that expended on its manner of presentation, but of collecting, selecting, arranging and presenting the available information in an intelligible manner. — TAI SHING DIARY LTD v. MAERSK HONG KONG LTD. SCP-2000 09:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion, the image appears not below threshold according COM:TOO HK and is copyrighted by the relevant Hong Kong organization. Template:PD-PRC-exempt does not mention flags or other logo’s as exempt from copyright. Template:OGL3 does not seem valid voor Hong Kong. --Elly (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in 2011, there is no freedom of panorama in Morocco, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep less than half the image devoted to the mosque, not main subject of the photo, which is the criteria for FOP here (photo could be used to illustrate Maroc Telecom or Renault cars or Avenue Mohammed V in Fnideq).--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per Goldsztajn, de minimis applied. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete exceeds de minimis, clearly meeting 1-5 of COM:De minimis#Guidelines. The mosque is the primary element of the photo, even if it might not take up 50% of the photo. The framing of the photo suggests that the photo was deliberately taken to capture the mosque. The title and description confirm that the mosque is the subject of the photo - the photographer's intent was to photograph the mosque, not the car or street. The car and street are not significant or notable, and the image IMO wouldn't have any education value if the mosque was cropped or blurred out (which it should be if the file is kept). -M.nelson (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and M.nelson. If the top part of the image would be cropped, the rest of the image would not be relevant. The image is used on articles in the projects because the photo shows the mosque. It has to be deleted therefore. --Elly (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The mosque was completed in the 2000s, there is no freedom of panorama in the Maldives, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep less than half the image devoted to the mosque, not main subject of the photo, which is the criteria for FOP here (photo could be used to illustrate Maroc Telecom or Renault cars or Avenue Mohammed V in Fnideq).--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)- Delete@Goldsztajn: This is a kind of FOP facet, your image's main topic is the mosque, don't say that title isn't important. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies Liuxinyu970226, too many tabs open on my screen, comment was intended for a different image. Striking. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in Maldives per COM:FOP Maldives. According to en:Hulhumalé the mosque was part of a development, finished by 2001. So the design of the mosque is still copyrighted. Permission could be obtained by contacting the architect according the procedure described on VRT. If successful, the image can be undeleted. --Elly (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BriefEdits as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion whether image isn't usable resp. in scope. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Only possible argument I could see is that it's of a Category:Fidget spinners at an angle. However, I don't think that satisfies COM:EDUSE. — BriefEdits (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: as BriefEdits writes, the photo is at an angle and gives additional value wrt to other images of the category. Therefore this image can be kept. --Elly (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Hola!, esta fotografía fue tomada por mí, en un principio contaba con el permiso de quien la protagoniza para publicarla, no obstante, por ahora -ya que luego puede cambiar el panorama- busca que sea eliminada de donde esté 190.47.45.99 08:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
misma razón comentada sin usuario :) Isisssvfq (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep The depicted person is not identifiable. I do not see any reason for deletion as it is no copyright violation as well. --Mosbatho (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Mosbatho got the point; Chilean courts began to see the cases. Although I agree with "depicted person is not identifiable", this is about a minor. I would accept deletion. --E4024 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep COM:FOP Spain allows these cases. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Spain? That girl is from Liceo No 7 in Providencia, Santiago de Chile; I guess... --E4024 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ohhe, but COM:FOP Chile is also ok, so which matter I met here? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please when you comment on a case, at least notice the country it is about. There are some 200 in the world, not too many. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ohhe, but COM:FOP Chile is also ok, so which matter I met here? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Spain? That girl is from Liceo No 7 in Providencia, Santiago de Chile; I guess... --E4024 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me that uploader Isisssvfq wishes to delete the picture. That should be enough to have the picture deleted. Mateussf (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
[[Category:Hello again, in the first place, the photograph is not in santiago de Chile, it is in another place (as identified in its data). Second, it is because OF A PERSONAL situation of the person who comes out in it. Of course, it is not possible to identify, but if I ask myself, as a favor, of people who acted in a good way, I do so, so I make the request.]]
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:COURTESY at request of uploader. --Elly (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cengizsogutlu (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Cengizsogutlupiribeyli.jpg It has been uploaded on 18 January 2021 here. 29 July 2018 (Facebook)
- File:Turkish sof.png It has been uploaded on 8 January 2021 here. 25 June 2020 (Twitter) Turkish Land Forces (official website)
- File:Para commando turkey 1s.png It has been uploaded on 8 January 2021 here. 17 April 2020 (Twitter) 30 June 2020 (militaryimages.net) 17 April 2020 Turkish Armed Forces (non-officical/instagram)
- File:Para land turk.jpg It has been uploaded on 8 January 2021 here. 7 June 2017 (Twitter) 24 June 2020 (militaryimages.net)
- File:Armored brigade TR.jpg It has been uploaded on 11 December 2020 here. 19 June 2020 (militaryimages.net)
- File:MPT.jpg It has been uploaded on 11 December 2020 here. 14 June 2020 (militaryimages.net) 10 October 2019 (Twitter)
- File:Cn235 cengiz sogutlu.jpg It has been uploaded on 1 October 2020 here. This photo was posted on milidom on 3 December 2016. 15 June 2020 (militaryimages.net)
- File:SAS Cengiz Sogutlu.jpg It has been uploaded on 1 October 2020 here. 25 February 2019 (corfiatiko.blogspot) Turkish Armed Forces (non-officical/instagram) 14 April 2020 12 June 2020 (militaryimages.net)
- File:Türkish SAS Cengiz Sogutlu.jpg: It has been uploaded on 1 October 2020 here. It has been posted on 3 June 2020 on military.net. But Hurriyet newspaper posted on 5 November 2019. [4]
- File:Village guard cengiz sogutlu.png 13 June 20200 (militaryimages.net)
- File:Monument hakkari.png It has been uploaded on 6 December 2019 here. 17 February 2017
I have found that some of these photos posted by this user in the profile on the relevant site (militaryimages.net), but I think these photos were taken by other people and institutions (probably Turkish Land Forces). Usually the upload dates are also on the same day. In Turkey, generally such photos taken the Turkish Armed Forces and it posted them on own website and social networking websites. Or these photo taken by soldiers more posted with the military's fan pages. Or these posted more through the press. It is clear that some of these photos weren't taken by himself. It is likely that he didn't take any of them himself. Uncitoyen (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- File:Guvenlik korucusu.png
- File:Jöh.png
- File:Jak dog.png
- File:Jak su.png
- File:Jak arama kurt.png
- File:Jak dag.png
- File:JAK turkish.png
- File:Dag hakkari.png
- File:Amfib turk.png
- File:Sahil ozel cengiz.png
Although I can't usually find the source of the logos now, I know they are official logos used by the Turkish security forces. He probably didn't produce these himself either. These logos contain drawings over simple drawings. All files uploaded by the user are suspicious. Therefore, I suggest it will be deleted them. Uncitoyen (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Its my own photo's also shared on military images.net you can see my posts & my name. https://www.militaryimages.net/threads/turkish-military-forces.6788/page-43
About File:Cengizsogutlupiribeyli.jpg I asked permission to share it was given; see link for conversation talkhttps://ibb.co/17p6KQS
All responsibility for the pictures belongs to me, By referencing networks such as twitter for right source's etc are not sincere at all.. Such silly words are also unnecessary He probably I think these photos were taken If you have high predictive power, you shouldn't be in the world famous encyclopedia. in my opinion.. As I said, all responsibility belongs to me, and I also only do military editions on wikipedia and have been sharing military pictures on different platforms for a long time in more official platforms than "from twitter". My username includes my name and last name..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Some of these photos I've seen before. Probably, you didn't take them unfortunately. They were posted on different websites before you post them on your militaryimages.net profile. According to the data, you find them from different sites and share them on militaryimages.net. Even if you share them on that site, the contents on that site is copyrighted, so if you can't upload it here. Uncitoyen (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and explanation. @Cengizsogutlu: you can follow the procedure on VRT to show you have permission from the original photographer(s) to publish the image(s) on Commons with a free license. If successful, the image(s) can be undeleted. --Elly (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Identity of subject and date of image unverifiiable. Bot uploaded and source is dead. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: this appears a black/white scan of a painting. Agnes Keyser was born 1869 and looks like max 40 years old on this image. So this painting is from around 1910 or earlier. It can be safely undeleted in 2030 (120 years after it was made). . --Elly (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Shot by Valenci Adair, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No indication that the uploader is the professional photographer Valenci Adair; needs OTRS. -M.nelson (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment or take action according the VRT procedure. --Elly (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope and useless photo. Out of focus and the subject is unclear. Solomon203 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. SCP-2000 14:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark. --Elly (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
It is the same postcards as Cars - Maison Guilleau et fils 1. I it was uploaded twice by my mistake William Ellison (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work". Seems to be an edited version of this photograph which was published as early as January 2018. Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. probably copyrighted, deleted per COM:PRP. --Elly (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dancter as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.ufc.com.br/news/jon-jones-aposta-em-vitoria-de-rafael-dos-anjos-sobre-conor-mcgregor It may be not a work by the youtube content creator (21.08.2020), but the link to ufc.com is dated 03.02.21. Discussion required. Strakhov (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- The date you're referencing is not the date the article was originally published. It is the date that page was generated, and changes frequently. The article is several years old (another version hosted on the primary domain can be found at https://www.ufc.com/node/75987, with the actual publishing date). The original photographer and photo agency are indicated in the very file name of the image in the page I originally linked. Dancter (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per original nomination, and per COM:PRP. It is not shown that permission for publication has been given for this photo, used in a youtube film. --Elly (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon à créer M Groux (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:COURTESY on uploader request. --Elly (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon à créer M Groux (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:COURTESY on uploader request. --Elly (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF by a one-time-only visitor. Dubious "own work". The person has one other image in Commons which seems not to have problems; therefore delete in peace. (COM:PCP) E4024 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PRP. Uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PRP. Uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Canada for text and the photo violates text author's copyright. Permission from Ontario Archaeological and Historic Sites Board is needed. Taivo (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Strong Keep
[edit]
- With respect to your comments, Taivo, I am currently on-hold with the Ontario Provincial Police Voice Of America at Broadcastify.com about differing opinions and emojis.
- The sign is freelance, set at a time before ICANN and some issues require community intervention from a Halton Hills, Ontario perspective.
- There is no access by Doug Ford who has been left holding the monkey's paw like some sort of irritated mule when it comes to condominium pre-sales and phases of local signage including internal board appointment setter five o'clock office -to- Morning family business chat to Condominium sale -to- permanent installation at the new underground or above ground parking spot. If the matter is to be resolved, we'll need another few weeks here to speak to Jimmy Wales about integration along WikiMedia lines with respect to information gathering.
- There are varying estimates as to the land value that this will contribute to Burlington, Ontario condominiums, but Marianne Meed Ward will once again have to intevene with guidance and perseverance from Patrick Brown families of Central High School. CHS26854.met.
--Britcouple007's Cam (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- All that can be, but without OTRS-permission from Ontario Archaeological and Historic Sites Board the file should be deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - as stated by nominator. -- Whpq (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete text are being excluded in COM:FOP Canada--A1Cafel (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Elly (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon prévu M Groux (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY, image not in use on the projects. --Elly (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon prévu M Groux (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY, image not in use on the projects. --Elly (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon prévu M Groux (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY, image not in use on the projects. --Elly (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon prévu M Groux (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY, image not in use on the projects. --Elly (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon prévu M Groux (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY, image not in use on the projects. --Elly (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon prévu M Groux (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY, image not in use on the projects. --Elly (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon prévu M Groux (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY, image not in use on the projects. --Elly (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
doublon prévu M Groux (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY, image not in use on the projects. --Elly (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The author in the metadata (Herman Reckman) does not match the name of the uploader (Philipvanvorstenbosch). No evidence of permission. ErikvanB (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work. Details: I notice than the user Slim282 made this file File:Протестующие на Площади Свободы.png at 15:10, on 23 January 2021 (in Kazan, Russia) and made this file on 23 January 2021 (in Moscow, Russia). I asked on talk page of the user (in Russian) how he made two photos from different cities in Russia (~700 km by air, but located in the same time zone - MSK, UTC+3) in the same time. I don't received an answer. Yet there's no answer. And on 24 January, 2021 this discussion was appeared, already on Commons. When two these files were exist, I think that just this file isn't the own work, because the user before made some files connected to Kazan and Tatarstan. Brateevsky {talk} 17:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- +1. Please, see other uploads of this User. All of them are copyvio. Lesless (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
unused selfie of no educational use. Pibwl (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. This is not a selfie however. @RKO4DADA: you can follow the procedure on VRT to show you have permission from the original photographer to publish the image on Commons with a free license. If successful, the image can be undeleted. --Elly (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
mirror selfie with a camera of no educational use. Pibwl (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Selfie of person in scope, because article exist on fr wikipedia. --Elly (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
je ne veux plus la rendre publique 2A01:E35:2436:8830:1CC4:481C:5975:745A 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
je l'ai mis dans un article qui a été supprimé donc je souhaite retirer cette photo afin d'y mettre un droit d'auteur 2A01:E35:2436:8830:1CC4:481C:5975:745A 18:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused; appears to be uploader's request -M.nelson (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and probably on uploader request per COM:COURTESY, unclear subject without any context so also of no educational value and out of scope. --Elly (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Ordinary religious worker, no scope at all. E4024 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Out of COM:SCOPE because no educational value. --Elly (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ordinary religious worker. He (image) could be in scope in the pic with Homeini (for Homeini himself) but alone has no educational value. Why did you make this crop? Will you make a WP article for a not notable person? Or is he someone notable without a WP article? E4024 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no reason for deletion imho, because image with Homeini is maintained. --Elly (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not an own work as claimed. E4024 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, appears scan of printed document. Uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Source: "Saudi Arabia newspapers" The license is not valid because we do not know the date of publication. Look at the small, coloured rectangle. E4024 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to doubt the publication date, stated 1968. According Template:PD-Saudi Arabia the image in PD in SA and in USA. The coloured rectangle might be added later or in a magazine, but this can be considered an addition de minimis. --Elly (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Diese Aufnahme wurde von einem Privatgrundstück und nicht von einem öffentlich zugänglichen Ort erstellt. Nach einem Urteil vom 17. Dezember 2010 (V ZR 45/10) ist es nicht gestattet, das Bildmaterial dann zu veröffentlichen, wenn es nicht vom einem öffentlich zugänglichen Ort (z.B: der Straße) aus aufgenommen wurde. „Das Eigentum an einem Grundstück wird aber dann durch (das Aufnehmen und) die Verwertung von Fotografien von auf ihm errichteten Gebäuden und auf ihm angelegten Gartenanlagen und Parken beeinträchtigt, wenn das Grundstück zur Anfertigung solcher Fotografien betreten wird.“ Simmerl89 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
- Das Foto wurde von dem öffentlich zugänglichen rückwärtigen Stichstraßerl, durch das man auch zu 1/2 anderen Wohnhäuser kommt, gemacht. Ich habe dabei ihr Privatgrundstück nicht betreten. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Ricarda --Ricardalovesmonuments (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Man sieht auf den Fotos ganz deutlich den Zaun, der das Grundstück begrenzen dürfte. Das Foto kann also ganz offensichtlich nicht auf dem Grundstück gemacht worden sein, sondern von öffentlichem Grund. --Rufus46 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ja man sieht einen Zaun. Aber das Grundstück vor dem Zaun, von dem aus das Foto gemacht wurde ist ebenfalls ein privater, mit einer Mauer umrahmter, Garten und demnach kein öffentlicher Ort. Zudem ist die oben stehende Aussage nicht ganz korrekt, denn es gibt keine Stichstaßen oder sonsitge öffentlichen Orte östlich der Straße St2105, vom dem aus das Foto erstellt werden konnte. Neben der rechtlichen Grundlage finde ich es zunehmend bedauerlich, dass dem Wunsch des Grundstückbesitzers auf Privatsphäre hier nicht nachgekommen werden will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmerl89 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ich habe mir jetzt zur Vergewisserung die Örtlichkeiten nochmal auf Google Earth angeschaut. Wenn man die Blickwinkel der beiden Fotos mit der Situation vor Ort vergleicht, habe ich sie jeweils an der Außenseite der erwähnten Mauer und ca 8-10 Meter vom Haus stehend fotografiert. Ich war also wie schon erwähnt nicht im Grundstück. Ich habe mir den GoogleEarth-Ausschnitt als Foto heruntergeladen und kann ihn gerne als Beweis hier reinstellen. Außerdem soll man die architektonisch und vom Bauschmuck schönere Seite den Leuten vorenthalten, bringen sie an der West- und Nordseite auch so einen an, dann habe ich nichts dagegen. Gruß Ricarda --Ricardalovesmonuments (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ein Bedauern, dass dem Wunsch des Grundstückbesitzers auf Privatsphäre hier nicht nachgekommen wird, ist fehl am Platze: Die Fotografin selbst kann die Bilder nicht löschen (Sie würde eine Löschung vielleicht auch bedauern). Hier werden zunächst nur die Argumente für und gegen Löschung gesammelt und dann nach ein paar Tagen von einem neutralen Admin entschieden. --Rufus46 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Die Frage ist ja nur, ob die Fotos von einem für die Öffentlichkeit zugänglichen Grund aus gemacht wurden. Grundstücke können durch eine Einfriedung (Zaun, Mauer) oder ein Verbotsschild (Durchgang verboten) als unzugänglich kenntlich gemacht sein. Fotografieren über eine Einfriedung hinweg (ohne Hilfsmittel) ist erlaubt. @Simmerl89: , es wäre sehr hilfreich, wenn du dich dazu äußern würdest, ob die Fotos von einem Platz außerhalb der Mauer gemacht worden sein können und ob dieser Platz öffentlich zugänglich ist. --Rufus46 (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Zu erst möchte ich mich für die Diskussion und alle Beiträge bedanken. Ich denke, dass dieses Bild von dem Vorgarten des Nachbarhauses aus gemacht wurde. Da dieses Bild eine etwas schräge Ansicht (verglichen mit dem Haus bzw der Straße) darstellt, kann es aber auch sein, dass es nicht aus dem Vorgarten, sondern von der Straße aus aufgenommen wurde. Da die öffentliche Straße aber mit ca. 1 Meter deutlich über dem Niveau des Vorgartens liegt, bin ich der Meinung, dass sich hier eine andere Perspektive in vertikaler Richtung ergeben müsste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmerl89 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wesentlich ist aber, ob dieses private Grundstück öffentlich zugänglich war (siehe oben), auf die Eigentumsverhältnisse kommt es gar nicht an (die kann der Fotograf ja gar nicht kennen). Also nochmal die Frage an @Simmerl89: Ist der Aufnahmeort öffentlich zugänglich, also nicht hinter einer Einfriedung und ohne Durchgangsverbotsschild?? --Rufus46 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Rufus46: Die Frage wurde bereits beantwortet: "[D]as Grundstück vor dem Zaun, von dem aus das Foto gemacht wurde ist ebenfalls ein privater, mit einer Mauer umrahmter, Garten und demnach kein öffentlicher Ort." Abgesehen davon: Ein Schild ist für eine Einfriedung ebenso wenig notwendig wie die Einfriedung selbst zur Abgrenzung von Privatgrundstücken. Bei einem Garten zwischen einem Wohnhaus und der (öffentlichen) Straße ist grundsätzlich davon auszugehen, dass es sich um ein Privatgrundstück handelt. Auch wenn bestimmte Privatgrundstücke prinzipiell von jedem betreten werden könnten, macht sie das dennoch nicht zu "öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen" im Sinne des § 59 UrhG.
- Sowohl laut der Fotografin selbst ("ca 8-10 Meter vom Haus", also vom abgebildeten Haus nach Süden) als auch den GPS-Koordinaten aus den Metadaten der Kamera nach zu urteilen, liegt der Ort der Aufnahme klar in dem besagten Garten und damit nicht im öffentlichen Raum. Aus den von der Fotografin bereits erwähnten Satellitenbildern aus Google Maps/Earth wird auch die erwähnte Mauer, die den Garten komplett umgibt, ersichtlich (wenngleich sie hier keine Rolle spielt). Den anschließenden Kommentar, "Außerdem soll man die architektonisch und vom Bauschmuck schönere Seite den Leuten vorenthalten [...]", verstehe ich nicht – ich vermute, das Gegenteil ist gemeint? --Sevi42 (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wesentlich ist aber, ob dieses private Grundstück öffentlich zugänglich war (siehe oben), auf die Eigentumsverhältnisse kommt es gar nicht an (die kann der Fotograf ja gar nicht kennen). Also nochmal die Frage an @Simmerl89: Ist der Aufnahmeort öffentlich zugänglich, also nicht hinter einer Einfriedung und ohne Durchgangsverbotsschild?? --Rufus46 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Zu erst möchte ich mich für die Diskussion und alle Beiträge bedanken. Ich denke, dass dieses Bild von dem Vorgarten des Nachbarhauses aus gemacht wurde. Da dieses Bild eine etwas schräge Ansicht (verglichen mit dem Haus bzw der Straße) darstellt, kann es aber auch sein, dass es nicht aus dem Vorgarten, sondern von der Straße aus aufgenommen wurde. Da die öffentliche Straße aber mit ca. 1 Meter deutlich über dem Niveau des Vorgartens liegt, bin ich der Meinung, dass sich hier eine andere Perspektive in vertikaler Richtung ergeben müsste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmerl89 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ich habe mir jetzt zur Vergewisserung die Örtlichkeiten nochmal auf Google Earth angeschaut. Wenn man die Blickwinkel der beiden Fotos mit der Situation vor Ort vergleicht, habe ich sie jeweils an der Außenseite der erwähnten Mauer und ca 8-10 Meter vom Haus stehend fotografiert. Ich war also wie schon erwähnt nicht im Grundstück. Ich habe mir den GoogleEarth-Ausschnitt als Foto heruntergeladen und kann ihn gerne als Beweis hier reinstellen. Außerdem soll man die architektonisch und vom Bauschmuck schönere Seite den Leuten vorenthalten, bringen sie an der West- und Nordseite auch so einen an, dann habe ich nichts dagegen. Gruß Ricarda --Ricardalovesmonuments (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ja man sieht einen Zaun. Aber das Grundstück vor dem Zaun, von dem aus das Foto gemacht wurde ist ebenfalls ein privater, mit einer Mauer umrahmter, Garten und demnach kein öffentlicher Ort. Zudem ist die oben stehende Aussage nicht ganz korrekt, denn es gibt keine Stichstaßen oder sonsitge öffentlichen Orte östlich der Straße St2105, vom dem aus das Foto erstellt werden konnte. Neben der rechtlichen Grundlage finde ich es zunehmend bedauerlich, dass dem Wunsch des Grundstückbesitzers auf Privatsphäre hier nicht nachgekommen werden will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmerl89 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Man sieht auf den Fotos ganz deutlich den Zaun, der das Grundstück begrenzen dürfte. Das Foto kann also ganz offensichtlich nicht auf dem Grundstück gemacht worden sein, sondern von öffentlichem Grund. --Rufus46 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deletion is apperantly requested by the owner of this monument. The image is not in use on the projects. Therefore it has been deleted by COM:COURTESY, and in addition because of the German regulations about privacy and making images from a non public place. --Elly (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Diese Aufnahme wurde von einem Privatgrundstück und nicht von einem öffentlich zugänglichen Ort erstellt. Nach einem Urteil vom 17. Dezember 2010 (V ZR 45/10) ist es nicht gestattet, das Bildmaterial dann zu veröffentlichen, wenn es nicht vom einem öffentlich zugänglichen Ort (z.B: der Straße) aus aufgenommen wurde. „Das Eigentum an einem Grundstück wird aber dann durch (das Aufnehmen und) die Verwertung von Fotografien von auf ihm errichteten Gebäuden und auf ihm angelegten Gartenanlagen und Parken beeinträchtigt, wenn das Grundstück zur Anfertigung solcher Fotografien betreten wird.“ Simmerl89 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
_3.jpg){kind=link}
- Das Foto wurde von dem öffentlich zugänglichen rückwärtigen Stichstraßerl, durch das man auch zu 1/2 anderen Wohnhäuser kommt, gemacht. Ich habe dabei ihr Privatgrundstück nicht betreten. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Ricarda --Ricardalovesmonuments (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Man sieht auf den Fotos ganz deutlich den Zaun, der das Grundstück begrenzen dürfte. Das Foto kann also ganz offensichtlich nicht auf dem Grundstück gemacht worden sein, sondern von öffentlichem Grund. --Rufus46 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ja man sieht einen Zaun. Aber das Grundstück vor dem Zaun, von dem aus das Foto gemacht wurde ist ebenfalls ein privater, mit einer Mauer umrahmter, Garten und demnach kein öffentlicher Ort. Zudem ist die oben stehende Aussage nicht ganz korrekt, denn es gibt keine Stichstaßen oder sonsitge öffentlichen Orte östlich der Straße St2105, vom dem aus das Foto erstellt werden konnte. Neben der rechtlichen Grundlage finde ich es zunehmend bedauerlich, dass dem Wunsch des Grundstückbesitzers auf Privatsphäre hier nicht nachgekommen werden will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmerl89 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ich habe mir jetzt zur Vergewisserung die Örtlichkeiten nochmal auf Google Earth angeschaut. Wenn man die Blickwinkel der beiden Fotos mit der Situation vor Ort vergleicht, habe ich sie jeweils an der Außenseite der erwähnten Mauer und ca 8-10 Meter vom Haus stehend fotografiert. Ich war also wie schon erwähnt nicht im Grundstück. Ich habe mir den GoogleEarth-Ausschnitt als Foto heruntergeladen und kann ihn gerne als Beweis hier reinstellen. Außerdem soll man die architektonisch und vom Bauschmuck schönere Seite den Leuten vorenthalten, bringen sie an der West- und Nordseite auch so einen an, dann habe ich überhaupt keine Probleme. Gruß Ricarda --Ricardalovesmonuments (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ein Bedauern, dass dem Wunsch des Grundstückbesitzers auf Privatsphäre hier nicht nachgekommen wird, ist fehl am Platze: Die Fotografin selbst kann die Bilder nicht löschen (Sie würde eine Löschung vielleicht auch bedauern). Hier werden zunächst nur die Argumente für und gegen Löschung gesammelt und dann nach ein paar Tagen von einem neutralen Admin entschieden. --Rufus46 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Die Frage ist ja nur, ob die Fotos von einem für die Öffentlichkeit zugänglichen Grund aus gemacht wurden. Grundstücke können durch eine Einfriedung (Zaun, Mauer) oder ein Verbotsschild (Durchgang verboten) als unzugänglich kenntlich gemacht sein. Fotografieren über eine Einfriedung hinweg (ohne Hilfsmittel) ist erlaubt. @Simmerl89: , es wäre sehr hilfreich, wenn du dich dazu äußern würdest, ob die Fotos von einem Platz außerhalb der Mauer gemacht worden sein können und ob dieser Platz öffentlich zugänglich ist. --Rufus46 (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Zu erst möchte ich mich für die Diskussion und alle Beiträge bedanken. Ich denke, dass dieses Bild von dem Vorgarten des Nachbarhauses aus gemacht wurde. Diese Bild wurde klar direkt senkrecht auf die Hausfasade schauend aufgenommen. Die Straße verläuft parallel zur Blickrichtung und kann nicht der Aufnahmeort gewesen sein. Zudem wird der Vorgarten, von dem aus das Foto gemacht wurde von einem Baum (hinter dem Fotografen) begrenzt, so dass diese Foto nur von dem privaten Grundstück aus erstellt werden konnte. --Simmerl89 09:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wesentlich ist aber, ob dieses private Grundstück öffentlich zugänglich war (siehe oben), auf die Eigentumsverhältnisse kommt es gar nicht an (die kann der Fotograf ja gar nicht kennen). Also nochmal die Frage an @Simmerl89: Ist der Aufnahmeort öffentlich zugänglich, also nicht hinter einer Einfriedung und ohne Durchgangsverbotsschild?? --Rufus46 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Rufus46: Die Frage wurde bereits beantwortet: "[D]as Grundstück vor dem Zaun, von dem aus das Foto gemacht wurde ist ebenfalls ein privater, mit einer Mauer umrahmter, Garten und demnach kein öffentlicher Ort." Abgesehen davon: Ein Schild ist für eine Einfriedung ebenso wenig notwendig wie die Einfriedung selbst zur Abgrenzung von Privatgrundstücken. Bei einem Garten zwischen einem Wohnhaus und der (öffentlichen) Straße ist grundsätzlich davon auszugehen, dass es sich um ein Privatgrundstück handelt. Auch wenn bestimmte Privatgrundstücke prinzipiell von jedem betreten werden könnten, macht sie das dennoch nicht zu "öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen" im Sinne des § 59 UrhG.
- Sowohl laut der Fotografin selbst ("ca 8-10 Meter vom Haus", also vom abgebildeten Haus nach Süden) als auch den GPS-Koordinaten aus den Metadaten der Kamera nach zu urteilen, liegt der Ort der Aufnahme klar in dem besagten Garten und damit nicht im öffentlichen Raum. Aus den von der Fotografin bereits erwähnten Satellitenbildern aus Google Maps/Earth wird auch die erwähnte Mauer, die den Garten komplett umgibt, ersichtlich (wenngleich sie hier keine Rolle spielt). Den anschließenden Kommentar, "Außerdem soll man die architektonisch und vom Bauschmuck schönere Seite den Leuten vorenthalten [...]", verstehe ich nicht – ich vermute, das Gegenteil ist gemeint? --Sevi42 (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wesentlich ist aber, ob dieses private Grundstück öffentlich zugänglich war (siehe oben), auf die Eigentumsverhältnisse kommt es gar nicht an (die kann der Fotograf ja gar nicht kennen). Also nochmal die Frage an @Simmerl89: Ist der Aufnahmeort öffentlich zugänglich, also nicht hinter einer Einfriedung und ohne Durchgangsverbotsschild?? --Rufus46 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Zu erst möchte ich mich für die Diskussion und alle Beiträge bedanken. Ich denke, dass dieses Bild von dem Vorgarten des Nachbarhauses aus gemacht wurde. Diese Bild wurde klar direkt senkrecht auf die Hausfasade schauend aufgenommen. Die Straße verläuft parallel zur Blickrichtung und kann nicht der Aufnahmeort gewesen sein. Zudem wird der Vorgarten, von dem aus das Foto gemacht wurde von einem Baum (hinter dem Fotografen) begrenzt, so dass diese Foto nur von dem privaten Grundstück aus erstellt werden konnte. --Simmerl89 09:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ich habe mir jetzt zur Vergewisserung die Örtlichkeiten nochmal auf Google Earth angeschaut. Wenn man die Blickwinkel der beiden Fotos mit der Situation vor Ort vergleicht, habe ich sie jeweils an der Außenseite der erwähnten Mauer und ca 8-10 Meter vom Haus stehend fotografiert. Ich war also wie schon erwähnt nicht im Grundstück. Ich habe mir den GoogleEarth-Ausschnitt als Foto heruntergeladen und kann ihn gerne als Beweis hier reinstellen. Außerdem soll man die architektonisch und vom Bauschmuck schönere Seite den Leuten vorenthalten, bringen sie an der West- und Nordseite auch so einen an, dann habe ich überhaupt keine Probleme. Gruß Ricarda --Ricardalovesmonuments (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ja man sieht einen Zaun. Aber das Grundstück vor dem Zaun, von dem aus das Foto gemacht wurde ist ebenfalls ein privater, mit einer Mauer umrahmter, Garten und demnach kein öffentlicher Ort. Zudem ist die oben stehende Aussage nicht ganz korrekt, denn es gibt keine Stichstaßen oder sonsitge öffentlichen Orte östlich der Straße St2105, vom dem aus das Foto erstellt werden konnte. Neben der rechtlichen Grundlage finde ich es zunehmend bedauerlich, dass dem Wunsch des Grundstückbesitzers auf Privatsphäre hier nicht nachgekommen werden will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmerl89 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Man sieht auf den Fotos ganz deutlich den Zaun, der das Grundstück begrenzen dürfte. Das Foto kann also ganz offensichtlich nicht auf dem Grundstück gemacht worden sein, sondern von öffentlichem Grund. --Rufus46 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deletion is apperantly requested by the owner of this monument. The image is not in use on the projects. Therefore it has been deleted by COM:COURTESY, and in addition because of the German regulations about privacy and making images from a non public place. --Elly (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
_3.jpg){kind=link}
"Own work"? What is own work, the frame? E4024 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- yes the frame ....E4024 do you think Moqtada al-Sadr will ask for royalties for this picture .. ..????--Nicoleon (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Who is he, the photographer? --E4024 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- E4024 there are no rights to these picture taken in Iraq during the war 20 years ago ..these are 2 photos assembled to make a poster whose origins are and will stay unknown.. nobody cares, you know that ...--Nicoleon (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Who is he, the photographer? --E4024 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader indicates this is a derivative work of two photo's which probably are copyrighted. Therefore this must be deleted. --Elly (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Do we need both jpg and svg (File:Muqtada-alsadr.svg)? Why not delete and make an RD? E4024 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: we do not need both versions, but both are in use. Per COM:Redundant, one of these may be deleted if replaced on all projects. If that has been done this image can be nominated again for deletion, @E4024: . --Elly (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
no indication of cc-by-sa licence on source page. Pibwl (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a press photo. Example of uncropped version at [5]. The OTRS tag was added by Jcb, so it's unreliable. What does that ticket say? Just because the file was uploaded to Commons by a heir of the businessman who traded the textile of the dress worn by one pictured person, that doesn't make him the copyright owner of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: This image is part of a series that was first deleted, then undeleted by former admin JCB. If the content of the ticket has to be discussed, please reopen Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lencloitre. --Elly (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused crop. While even the original image is not used, what is the need for the crop? probably made for a deleted article? E4024 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Oppose. The image was used in Ar.wiki, but someone replaced it. The reason for the crop is to omitt a logo of a company. If there is a suitable reason for deleting the original image, I think there is no reason for deleting this one. Thanks for you. --Dr-Taher (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Both images are not used; probably this person is out of COM:Scope. --E4024 (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: a cropped version is not a reason for deletion. This can be reconsidered by opening a DR for both images, cropped and uncropped. --Elly (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logo with bogus self claim by LTA. Discussion needed whether above or below TOO. Эlcobbola talk 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: TOO is rather diffuse in USA. en:File:Disney_Junior.svg is considered above threshold, so I would assume this logo will also by coprighted and we would need permission of WandaVision to use it on Commons or on the projects. --Elly (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work" since uploader and subject seem to be the same. Uploader acknowledged that the photo is from a studio shoot. Per the file's metadata, it was also published beforehand in Facebook or Instagram. Needs permission from copyright holder via COM:OTRS. Howhontanozaz (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
NOT Template:pd-textlogo. Unlikely to be in the public domain in the United States. Recommend transwiki to Farsi Wikipedia if it is eligible to be used there as a non-free image. If the Farsi Wikipedia's non-free content criteria rules are the same as the English Wikipedia's, it would qualify for use as a brand for an article about the company or perhaps one or more of its products. I don't read Farsi so I don't know their non-free content criteria. Recommend AGAINST "speedy deletion" without giving uploader a chance to see if it can be uploaded to the Farsi Wikipedia. Davidwr (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Slight correction: It would be usable on the English Wikipedia in an article about that specific product, but unlikely to be usable in en:Danone, which is the English version of fa:دنون. It is unlikely that the product in question would qualify for a stand-alone article in the English Wikipedia, but it might in the Farsi Wikipedia, depending on how that project handles well-known consumer products, assuming the product is well-known/"notable" in the Farsi-speaking world. Davidwr (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Il file non si vede in maniera corretta su tutti i sistemi operativi. Faccio che caricare una versione PNG. Matthew Clemente (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. png version does not appear to exist... nominator did not provide a link and I could not find it. --Elly (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not a real flag, there is no presidential standard in Uruguay. Nonetheless, the existence of this file has lead to several misleading editions in Wikipedia. Coquimbo58 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, not of educational use per COM:SCOPE. --Elly (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Unused screenshot snippet, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Fichiers utilisés ici (voir fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/9 juillet 2014#Catégorie écologiste). TED 21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not a real use, it is in a subpage, a talk page and there isn't consensus to use in a main page Ezarateesteban 20:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete delete per nomination and discussion -- deleting image will not break anything on the talk page it's used on. Mathmitch7 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of COM:SCOPE, as it has no educational value. Image is not in use today on the projects. --Elly (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Unused screenshot snippet, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Fichiers utilisés ici (voir fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/9 juillet 2014#Catégorie écologiste). TED 21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not a real use, used in a subpage and there isn't consensus to use it in a main page Ezarateesteban 20:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of COM:SCOPE, as it has no educational value. Image is not in use today on the projects. --Elly (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
the uploader is not the one having the rights on this image, which could also be copyright violation. See vtm.be. MichielDMN (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, probably copyrighted logo. --Elly (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Khairul.Islam 21 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: bad quality is no valid motiviation for deletion. Image is in use on en:Wikipedia. --Elly (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Cette photo ne correspond plus à l'état du château, qui a été entièrement restauré Jppallarea (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. that the photo shows a previous state does not put it out of scope. On Commons we keep many historic images of buildings. --Elly (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no realistic educational use - somebody's painting with promiment copyright watermark. Pibwl (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, possibly spam as well considering the link to the website where prints may be bought. --Elly (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}