Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/06/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![24 File:"Is Everything OK" By MystrE tha One.png](#File:"Is_Everything_OK"_By_MystrE_tha_One.png){kind=link}
![27 File:"And I Helped" By MystrE tha One.png](#File:"And_I_Helped"_By_MystrE_tha_One.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_خرمآباد_در_سال_1302_هجری_خورشیدی.jpg){kind=link}
_2014-01-18_07-50.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Renuncia.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
my choice Dipesh jha047 (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I am terribly sorry, but yesterday I uploaded a file to Commons that was provided by Susanne Thiemann (daughter of the person depicted) from her family album. As it turned out in the meantime, this portrait was not taken by herself but by a professional photographer and is thus currently unlicensed (ST is negotiating a licensing right now). The photograph's author requested the file to be removed from Commons untlil negotiations are completed. Karinsoika (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as G7. JGHowes talk 17:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=568181448&oldid=568155572
- Keep. No clear reason provided for the nomination. This sketch is apparently part of a series of three files illustrating three steps in the making of a drawing. Also, deletion would hide evidence useful to document a copyvio by an external reuser. Asclepias (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep @Asclepias: Sorry, I think I got the timing backwards. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gato boceto 003.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: I see that you removed the speedy request while I was was writing this ordinary DR to replace it. Not sure what to do with that. Maybe someone could just speedy close this DR as keep if nobody objects? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Asclepias: You could withdraw and someone could make a {{Nac}}. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, please consider it withdrawn. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Asclepias: You could withdraw and someone could make a {{Nac}}. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: I see that you removed the speedy request while I was was writing this ordinary DR to replace it. Not sure what to do with that. Maybe someone could just speedy close this DR as keep if nobody objects? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Withdrawn by nominator. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 11:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Khmergfn15 (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --JuTa 21:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Potential copyvio. Exifdata was written that "Software used Google". This image may came from other website. COM:OTRS permission is neccessary. SCP-2000 04:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Potential copyvio. Low image resolution and missing valid exifdata. SCP-2000 04:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete Appears to be a professional photo used in marketing, likely not free. Mysterymanblue 06:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I've made this picture of my colleague and uploaded it here. Now, he kindly asks for its removal for personal reasons; see the discussion page. Rießler (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept, free licenses are irrevocable. Taivo (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Ich habe dieses Foto meines Kollegen hochgeladen und glaubte, dass ich es selbst gemacht habe. In Wirklichkeit ist der Rechteinhaber ein dritter Kollege, der mit der Veröffentlichung in Commons nicht einverstanden ist. Rießler (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
On hold: Requested more info from the involved parties. --Achim (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've got e-mails. Niko Partanen confirms that he is the photographer, so the uploader's claim is correct. Both of them as well as the depicted Rogier Blokland ask for deletion. --Achim (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:CSD F1 and COM:BLP. --Achim (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mason Cvengros (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a photo album - claims to be a musician but not notable, neither could he have taken the photos he is in
- File:Looking towards my future.jpg
- File:Forever chasing the dream.jpg
- File:It’s a music thing you wouldn’t understand.jpg
- File:Jumping for music.jpg
- File:Cool Hat.jpg
- File:Sitting Alone With My Guitar.jpg
- File:When in doubt, smile it out.jpg
- File:Deep Thoughts.jpg
- File:Singer Life.jpg
- File:Singing Is My Life.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Iranian no scope Baratiiman (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope per Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose Smartse (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by IceBate1213 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
unused selfie Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
unused advertisement image Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)--Blueding (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Self promo on en.wp Minoraxtalk 06:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. in use on commons. --Minoraxtalk 06:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized image, kept after prior due to in use, which is no longer the case. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC) pls dont delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamjeed Ahmed (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
advertisement Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
![19:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/06/09#c-Андрей_Романенко-2021-06-09T19:45:00.000Z-File:"Is_Everything_OK"_By_MystrE_tha_One.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
![05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/06/09#c-George_Chernilevsky-2021-06-16T05:41:00.000Z-File:"Is_Everything_OK"_By_MystrE_tha_One.png){kind=link}
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
![19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/06/09#c-Андрей_Романенко-2021-06-09T19:46:00.000Z-File:"And_I_Helped"_By_MystrE_tha_One.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
![05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/06/09#c-George_Chernilevsky-2021-06-16T05:41:00.000Z-File:"And_I_Helped"_By_MystrE_tha_One.png){kind=link}
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project (something about an artist Google does not know). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project (something about an artist Google does not know). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project (something about an artist Google does not know). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Unused promotional logo and images of non-notable persons, no educational value, out of scope
- File:Gabriela Fontanari.jpg
- File:Logo FAMUN 2016.jpg
- File:Murilo Concon, Secretário Acadêmico 2016.png
- File:Renato Peixeiro, Secretário Geral 2016.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Because it is Logo — ⚞🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk⚟ 
My recent
mischief 
22:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Does not appear to be own work of uploader, looks like illustration from online source (see size.quality) Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Metadata credits Paul Richard Pucillo. Unclear if this is the same person as the uploader. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 15:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
small size Rohalamin (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:NETCOPYVIO [1]. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:NETCOPYVIO [2]. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; user is in good standing. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. User is in good standing. Stronger reason should be provided for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; imported from enwiki, author is in good standing. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; imported from enwiki; it has EXIF. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Rohalamin: : It's obvious this image is from over 50 years ago! According the copyright law of Iran, this photograph belongs to public domain. FaraM 00:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: {{PD-Iran}} requires evidence of prior publication. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Rohalamin: : It's obvious this image is from over 50 years ago! There is absolutely no "own-work claim"!!! :X According the copyright law of Iran, this photograph belongs to public domain. FaraM 00:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: {{PD-Iran}} requires evidence of prior publication. --4nn1l2 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interior of St. Rupert (Munich)
[edit]copyright violation; Georg Schönberger, artist of staines glass windows, died in 2017; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Gollierplatz 1 St. Rupert Innenraum Muenchen-1.jpg
- File:Gollierplatz 1 St. Rupert Innenraum Muenchen-2.jpg
- File:Gollierplatz 1 St. Rupert Innenraum Muenchen-3.jpg
- File:Gollierplatz 1 St. Rupert Innenraum Muenchen-4.jpg
- File:Kirche St. Rupert Inneres.JPG
- File:St. Rupert (München) Chorfenster 1.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) Chorfenster 2.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) Innenraum 1.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) linke Konche.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) linke Konchenfenster 1.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) linke Konchenfenster 2.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) rechte Konche.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) rechte Konchenfenster 1.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) rechte Konchenfenster 2.jpg
_Chorfenster_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Chorfenster_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Innenraum_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_linke_Konche.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_linke_Konchenfenster_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_linke_Konchenfenster_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_rechte_Konche.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_rechte_Konchenfenster_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_rechte_Konchenfenster_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interior of St. Rupert (Munich)
[edit]copyright violation; stained glass windows by Georg Schönberger who died in 2017; no freedom of panorama.
- File:München-Schwanthalerhöhe, St. Rupert (5).jpg
- File:München-Schwanthalerhöhe, St. Rupert (6).jpg
- File:München-Schwanthalerhöhe, St. Rupert, Maerz-Schmid-Orgel (32).jpg
- File:München-Schwanthalerhöhe, St. Rupert, Maerz-Schmid-Orgel (33).jpg
- File:St. Rupert - Schwanthalerhöhe -01.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Your reasoning is absolutely correct from a legal point of view regarding FOP in general. The technical quality of all those images is quite low; the glass windows as artworks are hardly identifiyable. They are mostly insufficiently balanced and overexposed. COM:DM should be sufficient for keeping those images. Msb (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Msb, de minimis. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- also file:DanaramPicsArt 02-27-04.11.10(1).jpg
Small unused personal photos without metadata, the user's last remaining uploads. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This is an outdated photo of Alex T. Wolf and should be deleted 174.212.227.116 04:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep a photo being outdated is not a valid reason for deletion. While this comedian might not be notable enough for his own Wikipedia article, he appears to have enough notability for inclusion on Commons. Mysterymanblue 05:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This is an outdated photo of Alex T. Wolf and should be deleted SBLOTHS (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, of course, "outdated" is not a reason to delete anything. I'll delete it as copyright violation. Small photo without metadata, uploader is globally locked. Taivo (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This is also an outdated photo of Alex T. Wolf and should be deleted because of irrelevance 174.212.227.116 04:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep a photo being outdated is not a valid reason for deletion. While this comedian might not be notable enough for his own Wikipedia article, he appears to have enough notability for inclusion on Commons. Mysterymanblue 05:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This is also an outdated photo of Alex T. Wolf and should be deleted because of irrelevance SBLOTHS (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, of course, "outdated" is not a reason to delete anything. I delete the file due to copyright violation. License review failed. OTRS-permission from author Megan Tolleson is needed to restore the file. Taivo (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Own work? Violation copy, unauthorized reproduction Bozs (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted, work of art by Italian Alberto de Gásperi, born 1934. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Copa Libertadores trophy depictions and Commons:Deletion requests/Copa Libertadores trophy.
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 06:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While I know COM:SCOPE is policy built on community consensus, I will conscientiously vote to keep any file that doesn't violate the law, copyright, or the rights of the subject. I suppose we're going to start deleting all of the photos that random Wikimedians took of each other at events because they're of "unnotable people"? Mysterymanblue 06:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 06:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While I know COM:SCOPE is policy built on community consensus, I will conscientiously vote to keep any file that doesn't violate the law, copyright, or the rights of the subject. I suppose we're going to start deleting all of the photos that random Wikimedians took of each other at events because they're of "unnotable people"? Mysterymanblue 06:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 06:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While I know COM:SCOPE is policy built on community consensus, I will conscientiously vote to keep any file that doesn't violate the law, copyright, or the rights of the subject. I suppose we're going to start deleting all of the photos that random Wikimedians took of each other at events because they're of "unnotable people"? Mysterymanblue 06:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Unused selfie, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- also file:VideoCapture ٢٠٢١٠٥٢٥-٢٠١٤٥٧.jpg
Small unused personal photos without camera data, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: the second per nomination. The first is now used on the subject's userpage on their home wiki. --✗plicit 12:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
There are enough nude pics on Commons. No educational value either. So: out of scope. Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 12:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
obscene material violating the terms of service 168.69.134.240 14:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Commons is not censored and file is in use. ✗plicit 12:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Auto-Generate (talk · contribs)
[edit]Background is a non-free stock photo; Flickr-washing from seemingly the same uploader.
- File:Aksara Batak Toba -nga.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - a.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - ja.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - ka.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - la.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - i.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - ha.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - ba.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - ga.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - da.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - na.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - ma.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - pa.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - nga.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - ra.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - ta.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - u.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - wa.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - sa.jpg
- File:Aksara Batak Toba - ya.jpg
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sumitgoswami7 (talk · contribs)
[edit](Extracts of) non-free movie posters/song covers. The uploader may be the subject of these images but not their creator and copyright holder.
- File:Postwer new.png
- File:Baapu.jpg
- File:Army Sumit Goswami.jpg
- File:Yaara Sumit Goswami.jpg
- File:Yaar purane.jpg
- File:Yaar ki shadi.jpg
- File:Wish Sumit Goswami.jpg
- File:Tora Sumit Goswami.jpg
- File:Red eye Sumit Goswami.jpg
- File:Raaj Sumit Goswami.jpg
- File:Private jet.jpg
- File:Jaane meri.jpg
- File:Holi anthem.jpg
- File:Feelings.jpg
- File:Chora gaam ka.jpg
- File:Brand Sumit Goswami.jpg
- File:Bollywood Sumit Goswami.jpg
- File:Birthday Sumit Goswami.jpg
- File:Bang bang.jpg
- File:Sumit Goswami Posters.jpg
- File:Parindey.jpg
- File:Sumit Goswami Karobaar.jpg
- File:Sumit Goswami Bawli Tared.jpg
- File:Sumit Goswami.jpg
Njd-de (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 12:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect copyright credit upon file upload Meowdy101 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 04:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Not own work owned by Televisa ItsJustdancefan (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{Duplicate |file=File:Kim Soo-hyun at the Seoul Drama Awards, 4 September 2014 03.JPG |reason= |user=-ink&fables }} -ink&fables (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
I cropped File:Kim Soo-hyun at the Seoul Drama Awards, 4 September 2014 03.JPG to create this file but found it to be unnecessary. I want it to be deleted to correct my mistake. I also checked on GlobalUsage that this file is not used on any other wikis. Thank you. -ink&fables (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, own work claim doubtful, and the assertion of {{Pd-textlogo}} is just ridiculous. 31.41.45.190 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's own work, user's only contribution Film Enthusiast (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size, copyright Rohalamin (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: No indication of publication under a free license at source. --Hanooz 20:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Not own work owned by Televisa ItsJustdancefan (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 09:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Not own work owned by Televisa ItsJustdancefan (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 09:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Not own work owned by Televisa ItsJustdancefan (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 09:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size, currncy Rohalamin (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD Iranian currency. --Hanooz 22:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
background image at https://www.shanukashehan.com/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Privacy concerns Onthebeach1 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The photograph is not of something private. Mysterymanblue 06:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per User:Mysterymanblue. And in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mysterymanblue as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No FOP in US
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion about whether the only relevant drawings in the first "square" are indeed above TOO. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I think the ‘L’ is clearly above the threshold of originality. I believe that this alone should mean the file is ineligible, since the L is clearly a part of the main subject of the photograph. However, one could argue that it is de minimis, so we can also question whether the B is also below TOO. While most of the individual elements within the B are common property, I think that the particular rendering of the eye of Horus might be above TOO. Of course, it was a hieroglyph, a part of a writing system, so it is almost certainly ineligible on that front. However, a copyrighted work may be greater than the sum of its parts, and I believe that the particular combination of common elements is sufficiently original and makes the B above the TOO. Mysterymanblue 07:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Something I overlooked in the initial request was the full extent of the street mural's copyright status. The street mural was commissioned by the City of Palo Alto, as you can see in these minutes from the Palo Alto public art commission. As it turns out, commissioned works generally belong to the artist, not the client who commissions them, so the street mural is indeed protected by copyright (that of the artists'). Mysterymanblue 20:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- De minimis only applies when the subject of the photograph is clearly something other than the copyrighted work, and the copyrighted work is only included because of necessity (i.e. it'd be extremely difficult or impossible to get a picture of the intended subject without including the copyrighted material). Given that the subject of this work is clearly the mural itself, it cannot be argued that the mural is De minimis. To quote that page: Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful - usually not okay. The image would not serve the same purpose if the copyrighted work would be removed, it was the reason for taking the photo, and as such I do not believe it meets de minimis criteria. Berchanhimez (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Please see the related deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black Lives Matter street mural, Palo Alto, California 02.jpg Mysterymanblue 20:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 05:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Uploader requested. An SVG version now exists as File:Hong Kong road sign 131.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio from https://www.neobricks.com Govvy (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio from https://www.neobricks.com Govvy (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio from https://www.neobricks.com Govvy (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio from https://www.neobricks.com Govvy (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 02:40, 12 July 2021 UTC: Commons:Screenshot: game --Krdbot 13:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Данные о лицензии не соответствуют источнику, контрафакт -- Tomasina (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
В указанном источнике отсутствует, есть здесь: http://www.sammler.ru/index.php?showtopic=190833&page=6. Контрафакт, сведения о лицензии ложные -- Tomasina (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Я его и взял с сайте http://www.sammler.ru/index.php?showtopic=190833&page=6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Генералов Георгий (talk • contribs) 07:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Сведения о лицензии ложные -- Tomasina (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Not so small as to be automatically suspicious. Images this size have passed at COM:VIC a number of times. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There are not enough reasons to delete it. Mmojtabaa (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: User cannot be trusted with own-work claims; many obvious copyvios by named photographers; too many high-end cameras; aerial photo; missing EXIF. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: User upload history: many copyvios with false own-work claims; too many high-end cameras. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: عکس : علی حنایی. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There are not enough reasons to delete it. Mmojtabaa (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: User upload history: many copyvios with false own-work claims; too many high-end cameras. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep If this was uploaded today, I would agree. However it was uploaded in 2007, when this would have been a reasonable size to upload, possibly after reducing the file size to allow uploading over a slow dial-up connction. In 2007 photo tools would suggest smaller images for "web use". AlasdairW (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that it has its EXIF data intact. --El Grafo (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Let's please stop this crusade against images that are merely somewhat small and ~15 years old. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that it has its EXIF data intact. --El Grafo (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. SHB2000 (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There are not enough reasons to delete it. Mmojtabaa (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Baseless nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: User upload history: many copyvios with false own-work claims; too many high-end cameras. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: User upload history: many copyvios with false own-work claims; too many high-end cameras; missing EXIF. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: عکس : مهرداد میثاقیان. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: عکس : احمد خیرالله نژاد. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: عکس : محمد لطیفکار زاده. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: EXIF: Author Mohammad Latifkarzadeh. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: User upload history: many copyvios with false own-work claims; too many high-end cameras. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: User upload history: many copyvios with false own-work claims; too many high-end cameras; missing EXIF. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: عکس : مهرداد میثاقیان. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: عکس : مهرداد میثاقیان. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: User upload history: many copyvios with false own-work claims; too many high-end cameras. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 12:16, 25 July 2021 UTC: No permission since 16 July 2021 --Krdbot 19:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Own work? Violation copy, unauthorized reproduction Bozs (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Own work? Violation copy, unauthorized reproduction Bozs (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Own work? Violation copy, unauthorized reproduction Bozs (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a complete blatant disregard for copyright. A file of the same trophy was recently deleted and reloaded again why? Because it looks good on Wikipedia A blatant disregard for derivative works.
I call @Thuresson, Elcobbola, and Nat: . Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
copyright infringement https://diaonline.ig.com.br/2019/02/08/estadio-em-goiania-conheca-os-5-da-capital-para-curtir-um-bom-futebol/?utm_source=Isabela+Gon%C3%A7alves&utm_campaign=diaonline-author Bozs (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting the image will be postponed until batch replacement with File:Estadio-olimpico-pedro-ludovico-teixeira-go-ii.jpg is complete. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Esta fotografia esta duplicada Tonallimunoz (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence that this is a duplicate. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
copyright infringement (Desenvolvido por Agencia Mi) https://tecnodefesa.com.br/exercito-recebe-seu-primeiro-lmv-br/ Bozs (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Esta fotografía está duplicada Tonallimunoz (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of image with unclear scope/subject. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
copyright infringement https://www.planobrazil.com/2013/07/20/video-viatura-engesa-ee-25-6x6-boomerang Bozs (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Source does not appear to allow free use for any purpose, including commercial: "This image may be used freely, with attribution, for research, study and educational purposes. For permission to publish, distribute, or use this image for any other purpose, please contact Special Collections and University Archives, University of Illinois at Chicago Library". There is certainly no creative commons license at the source. --Animalparty (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
exact duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jaccobbyy.jpg FMSky (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: @FMSky: In the future you may use {{Duplicate}}. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No evidence this was ever released into public domain. "Being on the internet" does not = public domain. Unlike federal government works, Missouri State works are not exempt from copyright. Alleged source (both now and in 2009) has © notice. --Animalparty (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Low quality photograph of beef nachos. We have an entire category of beef nachos (Category:Nachos with beef) and we have a photo of the same meal uploaded by the same uploader:
The one nominated is so low quality it would be unfeasible to use for educational purposes. Missvain (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
contains bits from the Coca-Cola logo, the McDonalds logo, and the Nike swoosh. none of these are able to be released under a free content license. the person who composed this file is an anti-copyright artist who holds none of the trademarks included in this file. 173.87.174.198 02:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Derivative of File:Coca-Cola Light logo.png, File:McDonald's Golden Arches.svg and File:Logotipo Nike.jpg --Sreejith K (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: COM:DW of PD-textlogo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Privacy concerns Onthebeach1 (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The photograph is not of something private. Mysterymanblue 06:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This photograph of nachos is almost painful to look at it's so blurry. We have an entire category of nachos (see Category:Nachos) to choose from. Missvain (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - blurry, unused. Gveret Tered (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
because i found it on the internet and i accidentally upload Anybodyzealous526525 (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation according to uploader. Mysterymanblue 06:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
https://johngswogger.wordpress.com/ has a non-commercial, non-derivative license, which is incompatible with Commons. --Animalparty (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The incompatible license was also in use when the comic was created (source). Mysterymanblue 06:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The use of this picture was granted by the author, and had free access to the file, just he said in his personal blog. In his blog, the author, John Swogger publish his works. Link to the page: https://johngswogger.wordpress.com/comics-archaeology/, and the license said: "Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format", so I believe that the image would be used in Wikipedia to illustrating the articles.--Lockheedpryde (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Lockheedpryde: Sorry, where does he say "Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format"? I can't find it at the link you provided, or anywhere on his website. Mysterymanblue 22:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I refeer to the license that existe in the blog. But if the license of image was incompatible with Commons, no problem to delete it. We can make a reference to the author's work on the text. No problem. Thanks to alert me about the license. --Lockheedpryde (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality (it is just text on a gradient background). I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo in the US. Fry1989 eh? 17:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete Not own work Fr4930 (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, out of scope. And likely not own work: taken from FB as per EXIF data. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from author and copyright holder Antoine Andary is needed. No evidence, that uploader Apollo Results is the same person. Taivo (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DontBeSuchANerdDude (talk · contribs)
[edit]All is vandalism
- File:Woman with semen on upper lip fellates penis.jpg
- File:Asian woman.jpg
- File:Schoolgirl in uniform.jpg
shizhao (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would say Keep under COM:NOTCENSORED, but I am a bit concerned that these photographs may have not been taken with consent. Mysterymanblue 06:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality (it is just text on a gradient background). I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Mysterymanblue that this doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Just change the license information next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality (it is just text on a gradient background). I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo in the US. Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality (it is just text on a gradient background). I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo in the US. Fry1989 eh? 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 06:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While I know COM:SCOPE is policy built on community consensus, I will conscientiously vote to keep any file that doesn't violate the law, copyright, or the rights of the subject. I suppose we're going to start deleting all of the photos that random Wikimedians took of each other at events because they're of "unnotable people"? Mysterymanblue 06:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not own work owned by Televisa ItsJustdancefan (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality. (It is just text and various colors/shapes.) I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterymanblue (talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I would suggest PD-textlogo applies. Fry1989 eh? 17:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Not own work owned by Televisa ItsJustdancefan (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality. (It is just text and various colors/shapes.) I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep.
- First of all, this simple number is not a work worthy of copyright protection anyway, with the necessary level of creation. So it doesn't really matter who created the work, and there's no reason to delete it.
- And secondly, the description did not even claim that it was an {{own work<}}/nowiki>. Rather, some details were described as <nowiki>{{unknown}}. I have now added the missing data. Thus the deletion request was / is nothing but warm air and there is no reason for deletion.
- Keep--Bestoernesto (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Not own work owned by Televisa ItsJustdancefan (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality. (It is just text and various colors/shapes.) I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterymanblue (talk • contribs) 07:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep No way it meets the threshold of originality. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size, missing EXIF, watermark at the lower right corner 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Because the watermark suggests it is nonfree. Mysterymanblue 07:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
jhkrjl3w 2406:B400:A9:7422:99C6:E4FD:104C:CF5C 08:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Basically, I have no problem with this image being deleted. However, I would like to hear a reason. "jhkrjl3w" is not a reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre m (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Please provide a policy based rationale for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
sourced as "From Adam Bartley, the image is his own.", yet author is stated as a "James DePietro". TherasTaneel (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment: size is not an issue for historical images. But I don't like using {{PD-Iran}} tag without any evidence of prior publication. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)- If the creator of the photo died in 1933, then the photo should be public domain - there is no own-work claim, dubious or otherwise. KeepNigel Ish (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There is no "own-work claim". Size is by itself not proof of a copyright violation. --MarcoSwart (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There is no "own-work claim", the picture was transferred from fa.wikipedia as an obvious PD picture under Iranian law. --MarcoSwart (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Full size: https://i.imgur.com/MGcK2rf.jpg --Barry Kent~commonswiki (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Nicole Claveloux is still alive, so the rights haven't expired yet. TherasTaneel (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation; artworks by Albert Balthasar who died in 1995; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, just delete it! I don't care. --Mtag (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Self-promotion, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion this is advertizing of unknown thing, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/G8011120.jpg
[edit]
Claimed as own work but Author LEONARDO MATTIOLI Copyright holder FOTOPRINT S.A.S. per exif
Needs OTRS
Gbawden (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Non notable logo 92.40.202.230 10:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Please provide a policy based rationale for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The logo has been changed. the company no longer uses this logo Bharvimal (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: We can keep the old one for historical purposes. --Missvain (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
but this logo comes everytime we search for the company name. need to delete or arvhive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharvimal (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
self-disclosed as not from uploader; no appropriate license Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete per reason given SHB2000 (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC). Keep given that it's 6 years old, and some cameras are quite small and thus, take small size images. SHB2000 (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Rohalamin has nominated dozens of images for deletion with this same poor argument. This is uncalled for and is frankly just disruption, as well hurting Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Rohalamin has nominated dozens of images for deletion with this same poor argument. This is uncalled for and is frankly just disruption, as well hurting Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- This photo has been used in four articles, is there a better photo to replace?--Meysam (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Do not delete ! The file is used in seven articles. There is no alternative file and no better quality is available due to camera model.--Meysam (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
We want to use this logo for Nigerian Commons Photographers User Group, while the picture is not accepted by trademark Wikimedia, we design another one, to be uploaded. Anass-kokoTalk 13:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's the wrong photo KSIMLER (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: "It's the wrong photo" is not a policy-based rationale for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Rohalamin: Do you have a better photo to replace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meysam (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
_%D8%AE%D8%B1%D9%85%E2%80%8C%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84_1302_%D9%87%D8%AC%D8%B1%DB%8C_%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C.jpg){kind=link}
_%D8%AE%D8%B1%D9%85%E2%80%8C%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84_1302_%D9%87%D8%AC%D8%B1%DB%8C_%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- The photo license is properly registered, the photo is old and no larger size is available --Meysam (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Photo size is enough for introduction! Do you have another photo to replace? --Meysam (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Looking at the upload date would have given you a clue: this photo was taken in 2005, hence the small resolution. This is indeed my own photograph, taken with my very own camera. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Rohalamin has nominated dozens of images for deletion with this same poor argument. This is uncalled for and is frankly just disruption. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size, logo Rohalamin (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- keep simple iranian farsi newspaper logo Baratiiman (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "Small size" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please provide a policy-based rationale. --Missvain (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No copyright violation. The image is published through Andina, which is owned by the Peruvian Government. ALCALDE GEORGE FORSYTH (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. In this image, FKI Tower is main object. 211.41.133.68 15:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's true, but this is my own work, published on Facebook by myself. How can I how can i prove it? --Dedda71 (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Please, check here--Dedda71 (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Assuming good faith here. --Missvain (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- it's my own work. Please check here --Dedda71 (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Assuming good faith here. --Missvain (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's my own work; please, check here. --Dedda71 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Assuming good faith here. --Missvain (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's my ownwork. Please, check here--Dedda71 (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Assuming good faith here. --Missvain (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's my own work too: please check here--Dedda71 (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Assuming good faith here. --Missvain (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- yes, it's my work too. Please, check here--Dedda71 (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Assuming good faith here. --Missvain (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in UAE. 211.41.133.68 16:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
When I purchased my very-expensive Burj Khalifa skydeck ticket, they told me that I was most welcome to take and post photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLBechly (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @PLBechly: yes you are free to take images of this famous landmark. But you are not free in publishing your images of this copyrighted architecture under commercial CC licensing here. COM:OTRS permission from the author of this building, Architect Adrian Smith, is still required. Note that permission must come from him and not the management who only holds physical ownership which is irrelevant at this point. See also COM:CRT/United Arab Emirates#Freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
OK I see, but here is my question. As management has license for imaging, did they not create a sub-license for me through the sale of the ticket and verbal permissions? I am not trying to be difficult, but just trying to understand.PLBechly (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Complex copyrighted logo; obviously false claim of own work Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The license information prevents this image from being hosted at Commons, specifically "The contents, images, text, documents etc. featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the data being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context." We have no control over how the image is used, so we cannot host this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No licensing information at source, only a photo. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- no delete as the source are a part of this presidentofindia.nic.in. So copyright policies can be available at there and not here...TTP1233 (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete As per (https://presidentofindia.nic.in/copyright-policy.htm) states clearly This contents of this website may not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from The President of India. Run n Fly (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No licensing information at source given. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. There is no licensing policy available at given source. Run n Fly (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nehuen CASLA12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Due to at least three cameras, and the remainin small and low quality images being without metadata, and the various styles, white balance and so forth, I do not think these images are the own work of uploader.
- File:Somos clásico, no enemigos.jpg
- File:H-SL 1952.jpg
- File:Huracán.jpg
- File:Hinchada de Vélez.jpg
- File:Hinchada de ferro.jpg
- File:Afición del Tokyo.jpg
- File:Hinchada del Tokyo.jpg
- File:San Lorenzo vs Huracán.JPG
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No source and no license, not own work Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Screenshots are not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Obviously not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Obviously not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Obviously not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Watermarked image not found at source given. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Obviously not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Sculpture without permission of creator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Art without artists permission. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Art without artists permission. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Two problems here, first is a transmission ID in the metadata which looks like it was copied from the internet (as does the size/quality), second problem is art without artist's permission. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a painting, but doesn't look like own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC) its my own work, i make paintings Tamjeed Ahmed (talk)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The object may be old enough to be free of copyright, but it's not user's own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
User did not create item depicted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's my work. I took this photo when the first couples, for the first time, were able to celebrate a civil union in the municipality of Palermo, in 2013. I was there. --Dedda71 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Assuming good faith. --Missvain (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Facebook size and quality, not own work Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes. it's my work. I took this photo many years ago, in a flashmob against homophobia (it was me, I had organized it). --Dedda71 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- take a look here, please.--Dedda71 (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Assuming good faith. --Missvain (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
DELETE THIS PHOTO OF ME AND ITS CONTENTS, not a Public Domain image and the US Marine Corps Already DELETED IT FROM THIER Federal Government Portal on my behalf 6 years ago!!! My name is Beth Hope and this is illegal to publish this IMAGE and all it’s PRIVATE PERSONAL INFORMATION. Permanently DELETE this image and ALL related content. Beth Hope 68.7.24.173 19:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This would be a courtesy deletion in the light of the age of the image. What's happened in the last seven years to make you change your mind, because once in the public domain, images tend to stay in the public domain. For example, we don't know how many other copies of this image exist on other websites which have relied on its PD status here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Please treat as a courtesy deletion request. The image was part of a batch upload in 2015, but is not in current use and no obvious internet footprint elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Photo from her Instagram profile (https://www.instagram.com/redzepagicaida/?hl=en). Commons:OTRS permission needed. Smooth O (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Single upload, No EXIF data. All previous uploads from same user are deleted. Smooth O (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
screenshot of a privative software, copyvio Ezarateesteban 20:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Image description credits Shanna Lockwood/Auburn Athletics Ytoyoda (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- The image was previously published here; an OTRS ticket is required.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&diff=568181448&oldid=568155572
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. As I read the linked thread, another party (NFT, whatever that means) might have misused this image. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep @Túrelio: Sorry, I think I got the timing backwards. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gato boceto 002.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Not uploader's work, this image is from Twitter and multiple other sites: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiuAtQyK-j6OXEcAidMVX_169eqzG47y2PZNMffCrqPTRJrGNI_1P3XNELdS1t8lfscmlrM91uPBMZwlHGgfxlqrhfqahPLrD1NjeeZtrQc0ri91QDRy1wEuylK97qMNdpLC3rG4g_1Rbl7ju0MWyWT_105WSqIGPgw3YGwBF59R5S0dFD2vVIDH636G8uky4e4l-PqUkzKioJSh1uzqZWdgmC03aPU40o_1rGOaNlfkxNuVBXWQnztIMnFIxrrvU7qv7KrtG-2SV7_1nIlkPlkxZSaSkh1Q3UEUDobUq_1rHpzr3ryp4RF5BkNtjQHk3xthhpp8P1qhWoWj00CR5k9Kd8fzUVe4yZxnTLvyqb3gX0NIh5m_1DkUIOKA_1TpAOkKSXKhBlMxmerAmJv576Qm0ppVHhnlt6MhHLA Putitonamap98 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Not uploader's work, this same image is found in different websites: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZit23AykKxL-Z_1cuqb8J54ug8-6GdVV-fT-sjuQTnqPulk28jNLfcW87y4W9pSQoiB_1VjyA46L3wJVvS5bZT77tsoFAu-MHd7ESGXKteQoESaL3tsE7P7Gfu2V6p2AlzNua9DpXSYA7gw9cFHspohmeCXGcvuiEQCwog6xcbt7wfEAqCainhTzeDp0e50lT1a-SGbNqJfYZP2MDLBKI5OtwBK92yzuSttMaTnFMdghAqHo-cjnz5dmKBwf3Ou1JitsUnxzXtiVAnvWfqzEPvQ9a4jnbCT-OYnCvK1fnWI8Dh5EwplSEB0Dess-TnU5ZCKlVsF6CmVv97xKZOxTFw9pq0j_1fAVjuCLiMSmieGXVFNH3AlitVSoV-Dx-mGXc2XkVb7nx4mU25C0Kr07w6yP2QGD9fvVg Putitonamap98 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Loveland Firefighters Memorial, Loveland, Ohio.jpg Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
A copyrighted book. Not clear that the uploader is the author, and even if so Commons is not a free book publishing service. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Edit, please add:
- Another copyrighted book by a different author Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation and also promotional with logo Theroadislong (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid reason for deletion. The image is licensed as {{Cc-by-4.0}} at the source and the presence of a watermark does not equate to promotion. The file can be tagged with {{Watermark}} if it bothers you that much. ✗plicit 13:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Comment The logo can be cropped out if the copyright license can be verified. The file was actually reviewed and verified by a Wikipedia and Commons administrator named Explicit. Explicit does a lot of work with files and it's unlikely he would verify a copyvio; such a thing is possible perhaps, but not likely (at least not knowingly). Maybe there's an older version of the source website that actually had a {{Cc-by-4.0}} at that which has since been removed. All that is needed is for the file to be licensed as such when it was uploaded or when the license was reviewed. Anyway, I've notified him of this discussion; so, perhaps he can clarify things a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry there was an edit conflict while I was trying to post. Explicit has in fact already posted so ignore the bit about him perhaps clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing has changed with the source website, Tistory, since I uploaded it. At the time and the current version still lists attribution at the right bottom of the blog page where comments start, click open to find: {{Cc-by-4.0}}.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Original archived in 2018, [3].--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Bonnielou2013: I believe there might be some confusion due to the copyright notice for "Kakao Corp." at the very bottom of the page; perhaps that's the for the site hosting the blog. The actual attribution for the content of the blog is easy to miss because (1) not everyone reads Korean and (2) the CC icon is really quite small and light grey on a field of white (so it's kind of hard to see). I missed it myself the first time I looked and only found it after you pointed out where it is. Maybe it would be a good idea to add a bit more to the file's description (even a link to the license) so that others are aware of where to look. Anyway @Theroadislong: , if you click here, you'll see that this file does have (or at least seems to have) a CC license that Commons accepts. It's possible that a cropped version of the file could be made to remove the logo; moreover, as long as the extracted version is linked to the original, then that should be OK to do so. As for the file's use in the Wikipedia article, that's a different matter that probably should be discussed on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work: shows a photographic work (illustrated poster). = Image of an image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Potential COM:Derivative work problem (shows an illustrated poster). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own work: small size Rohalamin (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: No reverse image results, mere suspicion is not grounds for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
This image I think is problematic. It comes from a Representative's account, but we have no idea of the source of the two or three background images and I think from COM:PRP we should consider deletion on this one Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Seems unlikely that those background images would be official U.S. government works; they appear to be stock photos. Mysterymanblue 19:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Potential copyvio: no EXIF, small, only upload (see Special:Contributions/Anthonycphiri). Leyo 20:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Prior publication: [4] (first found by Tineye on 4 Sep 2014). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by أيمن محمد إبراهيم الدسوقي (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
- File:Covid 19 ELA ACOA.jpg
- File:Ayman in 1st conference of The National Center for Archives & Records.jpg
- File:Ayman deserve prize.jpg
Didym (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
_2014-01-18_07-50.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2014-01-18_07-50.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
著作権違反のため 宗教研究家 (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
_2014-01-18_07-50.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: copyvio, screenshot. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
_2014-01-18_07-50.JPG){kind=link}
This media's marked creation date is 2020, and its first use on the Twitter profile predates the inauguration (source). A photograph of the current Second Gentleman created in 2020 would almost certainly not be in the public domain under the asserted rationale, since the new administration would not have been in power and would not have had access to federal government photographers. Mysterymanblue 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
already exists as File:Durin's Bane.jpg. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
not own work, already exists as File:Gimli son of Gloin by Perrie Nicholas Smith.jpg. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
not own work, already exists as File:Flag of Mordor SVG.svg. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
not own work, already exists as File:Legolas Greenleaf by Benjamin Drake.png. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
not own work, already exists as File:Aragorn.png. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
not own work, already exists as File:Geralt.jpg. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
not own work, already exists as File:Dragon by Henry Justice Ford.jpg. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
not own work, already exists as File:De Neuville - The Huns at the Battle of Chalons.jpg. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not own work. Duplicate of Eduard von Grützner - Falstaff (1906).jpg. Kitayama (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality (it is just text and geometric shapes on a gradient background). I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: unused logo, not even an item in WD, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality (it is just text on a gradient background). I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep This doesn't meet the threshold of originality. So the copyright holder likely doesn't need to license the file. So just change the license information to reflect that it's being used under fair use rules. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment @ItsJustdancefan: I have readded my comment that you deleted from this page on June 26. Please do not remove other people's comments on talk pages. Thank you. Mysterymanblue 04:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- They did the same thing to me around the same time. I think it was an accident. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: unused logo, useless without context/description, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: This is essentially similar to an existing stock photo that predates the upload date. I would vote Delete, but I do wonder at what point an icon is so simple (or similar to other icons) that it no longer qualifies for copyright protection. Mysterymanblue 06:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: likely not a copvio, compare to all other icons in Category:Hospital icons. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not own work ItsJustdancefan (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion. Not found elsewhere using Google Images. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Source website has no indication of free license; a commission work might not include transfer of copyrights. OTRS permission needed. MKFI (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not own work. It is image from sourse https://history.wikireading.ru/hzZ19sug0q Venzz (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not own work. It is image from sourse https://history.wikireading.ru/hzZ19sug0q Venzz (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Es liegt keine Genehmigung des Eigentümers vor Geoprofi Lars (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
duplicated Venkat1908 (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Full size here: https://i.imgur.com/AEmbd2H.jpg --Barry Kent~commonswiki (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- This has been uploaded just 11 days ago. Someone downloaded a picture from Wikipedia and uploaded there, not the opposite. --Sicaspi (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, kept per User:Sicaspi. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Specially for you - the full size picture: https://i.imgur.com/8DsKEYn.jpg
Regards, --Barry Kent~commonswiki (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anzali lagoon Barry Kent.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
to be modified Venkat1908 (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious own-work claim: small size, Name of photographer is written on the title Rohalamin (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Small size, lacking EXIF, also, it depicts the evolution of a building whose architect died in 1975 (copyright duration in Greece is 70 years). C messier (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@P199: You closed the discussion as deleted, but didn't delete the file 
. --C messier (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Apart from the small size, it probably violated the copyright both of the original architech of the building, who died in 1975, but also of the architech firm that repurposed the building in 2010s. C messier (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by मेख्ली डोल्मा (talk · contribs)
[edit]Transmission code appears to be Facebook images, permission is needed
- File:Queer Indigenous Pride March Nepal 2019 Rally2.jpg
- File:Queer Indigenous Pride March Nepal 2019 Banner.jpg
- File:Queer Indigenous Pride March Nepal 2019 Safal Lama.jpg
- File:Queer Indigenous Pride March Nepal 2019 Rally.jpg
- File:Queer Indigenous Pride March Nepal 2019 Deepsh Shrestha.jpg
- File:Queer Indigenous Pride March Nepal 2019.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by EkniBhattaKhas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Transmission code appears to be Facebook images, permission is needed
- File:Nepal Pride Parade4.jpg
- File:Nepal Pride Parade2.jpg
- File:Nepal Pride Parade3.jpg
- File:Nepal Pride Parade1.jpg
- File:Rukshana kapali.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Size, quality and Unique Transmission ID in meta data suggest this is not own work but instead copied from elsewhere. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Photo of a gallery exhibit without permission from the artist of works. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by R Católico (talk · contribs)
[edit]Some of these have facebook metadata, the others appear as if they should due to size/quality.
- File:Cruces recruzadas madera.png
- File:Altar mayor Iglesia la Merced Habana.png
- File:Ágape caballeros y damas de la Trinidd.png
- File:Iglesia de la Merced Habana Vieja Domingo Ramos.png
- File:Cruz Recruzada Caballeros Trinitarios.jpg
- File:Virgen de la Merced y santos.jpg
- File:Obispo mercedario.jpg
- File:Novicios mercedarios.jpg
- File:Frailes de la merced.jpg
- File:Fraile mercedario.jpg
- File:San pedro pascual.jpg
- File:San pedro nolasco.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by R Católico (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE user-generated flags and heraldry; violations of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". N.B. uploader's own self-promotional advertisement/hoax page on Spanish Wikipedia now deleted: w:es:Hermandad de Caballeros de la Santísima Trinidad
- File:Escudo Hermandad OMSST Caballeros Trinitarios Coronado.png
- File:Escudo Hermandad OMSST Caballeros Trinitarios.png
- File:Cruz Recruzada Roja OMSST Caballeros Trinitarios Hermandad sello.png
- File:Cruz Recruzada negra OMSST Caballeros Trinitarios Hermandad corona.png
- File:Escudo Hermandad OMSST Caballeros Trinitarios sello.png
- File:Cruz Recruzada Roja OMSST Caballeros Trinitarios Hermandad circular.png
- File:Escudo Hermandad OMSST Caballeros Trinitarios tenante corona.png
- File:Escudo Hermandad OMSST Caballeros Trinitarios circular.png
- File:Logo Red Católica Juvenil Cubana.png
- File:EscudoMilitiaTrinitatis.jpg
- File:EscudoMilitia.jpg
- File:CruzMilitia.jpg
- File:BanderaHermandad.jpg
- File:EscudodeHermandad123.jpg
- File:Bandera de la Hermandad123.jpg
- File:EscudoHermandadtrinidad.jpg
GPinkerton (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by R Católico (talk · contribs) 3
[edit]As per the first DR for this user, this is an unreliable uploader. Although these images have camera metadata, it is questionable or manipulated data. E.g. File:Entrada I.jpg is clearly a photo or scan of an existing image; File:Iglesia de Quivicán.JPG is clearly a DW with an inset; and File:Rosario Irlandés.jpg is a low-res web-sized image, supposedly taken with a high-end Nikon D200 camera (???). Unreliable uploads, COM:PRP.
- File:San Ambrosio de Milán.jpg
- File:San Carlos.jpg
- File:Exterior de la Capilla.jpg
- File:Entrada II.jpg
- File:Entrada I.jpg
- File:Capilla III.jpg
- File:Capilla II.jpg
- File:Capilla I.jpg
- File:Rosario Irlandés.jpg
- File:Marcha de las antorchas Quivicán.JPG
- File:Fiesta de Quivicán.JPG
- File:Glorieta de Quivicán.JPG
- File:Iglesia de Quivicán.JPG
- File:Interior Iglesia Parroquial Quivicán.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep These span a rather long timeframe, so it is plausible for one person to have used so many cameras. File:Entrada I.jpg is not a scan, but the result of perspective correction in Photoshop. I see no reason to think that both images in File:Iglesia de Quivicán.JPG were not taken by the same person. Regarding File:Rosario Irlandés.jpg, there is nothing wrong with a low-res image from a high-end camera; it was quite common practice at the time for people to resize for web, and no one would have imagined that their authorship would be questioned 10+ years in the future. The uploader is no longer active, but given that most of these are all from 2010 or earlier, we cannot apply modern standards of evidence to images from that era. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Of course there is always a possibility that your assumptions above are true, but considering the pattern of strange uploads, it is far more logical to assume copyvios. For example, dates in the EXIF data are not reliable (File:Interior Iglesia Parroquial Quivicán.jpg says 1 January 2004 in EXIF data but 2008 in description and File:Fiesta de Quivicán.JPG says 26 February 2003 in EXIF data but 2009 in description), therefore the images don't span such a long time as you think. Also questionable is the Capilla series: all said to be from the same day but taken by 2 different cameras. Together with the previous DR's, there is sufficient doubt IMO to believe these uploads are not own works... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Notice that the EXIF says "12:00, 1 January 2004". Clearly they forgot to set their camera date & time. And the Capilla images are not actually from the same date, but rather simply uploaded as such in the file description, perhaps out of laziness. Remember that back then, there was no auto-population of file description date based on EXIF. I have encountered manipulated EXIF metadata many times before, and I know very well what it looks like. This is not one of those cases. Every discrepancy you've described can be attributed to honest error.
- The previous DRs are also not evidence against the user's honesty. The first DR was a COM:PCP-based deletion, which cannot be used in support of the deletion of other PCP-based deletions; all it demonstrates is that they are no longer active since they failed to show up to defend their uploads, but not that those images are actually copyvios. The second DR was based on COM:SCOPE rather than copyvio. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: I'm willing to go with King of Hearts here and assume that this is actually one person using multiple cameras over several years. The one file that really stood out was the one of the rosary; after a little digging it turned that this was another user's photo taken from en.wp and uploaded here; I've corrected the description of that file. Of the 2003/004 vs. 2008/2009 files, I'm not sure which dates are correct - perhaps the (earlier) Exif dates, as the user uploaded them in 2009. I'm not so sure about those two stained-glass windows situated in a building newly built in 2010, they could be new or they could have been transferred from the old building that seminary was using (it's the two saints the seminary is named after). Cuba apparently does have FoP, but only in public places (as usual), that seminary is probably not a public place. --Rosenzweig τ 16:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
i just want to delete it Idyahyaa (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
i just want to delete it Idyahyaa (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
No source of basemap Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 07:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
File size and metadata suggest a Facebook source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 07:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
File size and metadata suggest a Facebook source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 07:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept the clear consensus is that this falls under the threshold of originality. @ItsJustdancefan: in cases like this you can always request your nomination be withdrawn. Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality (it is just text on a gradient background). I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- +1, Keep, Another vandalism action by ItsJustdancefan. The image clearly represents a logo that falls under the license {{PD-textlogo}} (Threshold of originality) Instead of correcting incorrect licenses, he submits mass deletion requests. I have made the information a bit more precise and removed the deletion request module. (@Adamant1 and Fry1989: for Information}--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 15:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- +1,
- Keep PD-textlogo. Fry1989 eh? 21:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As what Fry1989 said. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
_Renuncia.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Renuncia.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
La imagen fue subida a YouTube con una licencia compatible, pero está claro que el vídeo no le pertenece a Tv Piura, por lo que la licencia es errónea. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la page "famille de Rougemont", fichier inutiliisé. AdeRubeomonte (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: can be EDUSE. Ruthven (msg) 11:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la page "famille de Rougemont", fichier inutiliisé. AdeRubeomonte (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la page "famille de Rougemont", fichier inutiliisé. AdeRubeomonte (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la page "famille de Rougemont", fichier inutiliisé. AdeRubeomonte (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la page "famille de Rougemont", fichier inutiliisé. AdeRubeomonte (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la page "famille de Rougemont", fichier inutiliisé. AdeRubeomonte (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la page "famille de Rougemont", fichier inutiliisé. AdeRubeomonte (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la page "famille de Rougemont", fichier inutiliisé. AdeRubeomonte (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Suppression de la page "famille de Rougemont", fichier inutiliisé. AdeRubeomonte (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Ausweislich der Metadaten ist das Werk urheberrechtlich geschützt, Ersteller ist https://foto-steinke.fotograf.de/imprint Solomon Dandy (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 20:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Urheberrechtsverletzung, siehe https://www.lvz.de/Leipzig/Lokales/Der-Leipziger-Bildhauer-Friedemann-Lenk-ist-gestorben Solomon Dandy (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyright violation; showing contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama. / photographer?? Martin Sg. (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination(s), COM:PRP. --Rosenzweig τ 21:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of this image and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:OTRS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Keine Genehmigung des Erstellers, Panoramafreiheit greift hier ebenfalls nicht Geoprofi Lars (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP Germany: "ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time." IronGargoyle (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 18:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Keine Genehmigung des Erstellers, Panoramafreiheit greift hier ebenfalls nicht Geoprofi Lars (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP Germany: "ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time." IronGargoyle (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 18:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Keine Genehmigung des Erstellers, Panoramafreiheit greift hier ebenfalls nicht Geoprofi Lars (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP Germany: "ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time." IronGargoyle (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 18:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Keine Genehmigung des Erstellers, Panoramafreiheit greift hier ebenfalls nicht Geoprofi Lars (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP Germany: "ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time." IronGargoyle (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Keine Genehmigung des Erstellers, Panoramafreiheit greift hier ebenfalls nicht Geoprofi Lars (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP Germany: "ephemeral works, such as ice or sand sculptures, or chalk paintings on streets, whose lifetime is limited by certain natural constraints; leading academic commentaries almost universally consider such works permanent even though they often exist only for a short period of time." IronGargoyle (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Auf Wunsch des Eigentümers darf kein Bild hochgeladen werden, wo Mitarbeiter zu erkennen sind, was auf diesem Foto leider der Fall ist Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader courtesy. While licenses are non-revokable and we don't have to follow the owner's wishes above, I don't see much harm in abiding by the owners' (whoever they are) request for privacy of their employees. This file does not contain irreplaceable educational material. -M.nelson (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: cropped the person from the image, deleted the first version. --Rosenzweig τ 10:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Keine Erlaubnis der Eigentümerin vorhanden Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Image of a functional object, not a derivative work. No permission from owner required. Mysterymanblue 00:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Bild wurde im Bereich der Kathedrale erstellt, in der das Fotografieren nicht erlaubt ist, daher beantrage ich die Löschung des Bildes Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While you broke the rules of the cathedral, this photograph is properly licensed and is not a derivative work of anything copyrightable. No valid reason for deletion. Mysterymanblue 00:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Erlaubnis der Besitzerin liegt nicht vor Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Geoprofi Lars: I don't understand your reason, because neither do cats have a Personality right nor do cat's owners an exclusive right on pictures of their cats (see also de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache)? Could you elaborate, what exactly is the problem? --A.Savin 13:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I did not finde that articel. Thanks for helping! --Geoprofi Lars (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- But the problem with this picture is that it was taken in the owner's private living room. --Geoprofi Lars (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Ich kann es von mir aus kulanzlöschen, aber ansonsten sehe ich nicht ein, dass jemands Privatsphäre verletzt wäre. Die Wohnadresse und die menschlichen Bewohner sind ja nicht identifizierbar. --A.Savin 17:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- If there is no problem with the picture, you should not delete it. 😉. --Geoprofi Lars (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Es liegt keine Einwilligung des Eigentümers vor Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC) No reason for deletion (no right to the picture of your own thing). Image was taken from a public path. This means that no consent from the owner is required. --Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator withdrawn, no valid reason for deletion. Mysterymanblue 00:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Es liegt keine Einwilligung des Eigentümers vor Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC) No reason for deletion (no right to the picture of your own thing). Image was taken from a public path. This means that no consent from the owner is required. --Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator withdrawn, no valid reason for deletion. Mysterymanblue 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Es liegt keine Einwilligung des Eigentümers vor Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC) No reason for deletion (no right to the picture of your own thing). Image was taken from a public path. This means that no consent from the owner is required.--Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator withdrawn, no valid reason for deletion. Mysterymanblue 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Es liegt keine Einwilligung des Eigentümers vor Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC) No reason for deletion (no right to the picture of your own thing). Image was taken from a public path. This means that no consent from the owner is required.--Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator withdrawn, no valid reason for deletion. Mysterymanblue 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Es liegt keine Einwilligung des Eigentümers vor Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC) No reason for deletion (no right to the picture of your own thing). Image was taken from a public path. This means that no consent from the owner is required.--Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator withdrawn, no valid reason for deletion. Mysterymanblue 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate. File:அப்பம் தின்ற முயல் 1-10.png available.--Info-farmer (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
yes. i agree to delete. becoz png version available and it is enough to our project. Guruleninn (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744). Also, this file has many more pixels. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: png version was redirected to jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Under 17 U.S. Code § 105(a), works of the United States government are generally in the public domain; a work of the United States government is defined by 17 U.S. Code § 101 as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". This image of a man (who happens to be a U.S. rep) snuggling with his daughter could not possibly be considered to have been created as part of his official duties. Mysterymanblue 05:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, based on the angle, this was likely taken by his wife. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Photograph of nonfree works; the photographs of the American legion members are clearly not official portraits and were probably taken by someone from American Legion Post 151, a private (non-governmental) organization. Mysterymanblue 05:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
esta mal hecho Daniel Herrera H (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per {{Db-self}}, uploader request shortly after uploading. Also, I'm not confident about the free license on this photo. -M.nelson (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:M.nelson. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Webcam media not created by federal employees uploaded by User:Missvain
[edit]- File:Costa Constantinides in 2020.jpg
- File:Cheyenne Kippenberger testifying in front of United States House Committee on Natural Resources.png
- File:Mitch Landrieu testifies in front of United States House Committee on Natural Resources.png
- File:Christy S. Coleman testifying in front of the United States House Committee on Natural Resources.ogv
- File:Robert Bullard testifying during the Environmental Justice for All Act Legislative Hearing.jpg
Each of these individuals owns the copyright over their own webcam footage; the fact that it was broadcast as part of a federal government hearing cannot possibly deprive them of their copyright since they were not federal employees when the video was captured. Mysterymanblue 05:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation; artist of stained glass windows died in 1983; no freedom of panorama.
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, no COM:FOP Germany#Public in churches. The first photo would be copyrighted by the stained glass artist; the second one by the architect (the stain glass might be de minimis). -M.nelson (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. The photo of the window can be restored in 2054. --Rosenzweig τ 07:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation; showing contemporary artworks (church inaugurated 1957); no freedom of panorama.
- File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 01.jpg
- File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 02.jpg
- File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 10.jpg
- File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 11.jpg
- File:Vinzentinerinnenkirche (Freiburg) 12.jpg
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_12.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, no COM:FOP Germany#Public in churches. All artwork, sculpture, etc presumably copyrighted. -M.nelson (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 07:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
This gives en:File:Muferiat Kamil.jpg as its source. That page (which I have also nominated for deletion) does not provide adequate evidence of a free license. As in the author field here on Commons, it links a server that does not even exist.The licensing uses {{Self}} (which means the uploader claims to own the copyright) and claims to be granting a GFDL license and a cc-by-sa-4.0. It seems very unlikely on the surface of it that the uploader could possibly own the copyright. Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Tineye finds the photo at https://www.pmo.gov.et/council/ (needs "www" for the URL to work) since 2019, before the file was uploaded here. That site is tagged Copyright ©, with no indication of a CC license. -M.nelson (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, COM:PRP. --Rosenzweig τ 10:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Postcards are not PD. Only stamps are. --Interfase (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Коллега, во-первых, это не почтовая открытка, а открытка из серии карточек к книге Т. Ткаченко "Народный танец". Художник - П.Я. Караченцов. Во-вторых, изображение является общественным достоянием, что отмечено на сайте, откуда иллюстрация была взята, а именно на сайте библиотеки им. Н.А. Некрасова. ----Davidgasparyan2001 (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Где на сайте указано, что изображение можно публиковать под лицензией "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication"? --Interfase (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Цитирую сайт: "Мы предприняли все возможные действия, стремясь удостовериться в том, что каждое из произведений, размещенное на этом сайте в открытом доступе, перешло в общественное достояние".--Davidgasparyan2001 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- И где там написано про лицензию "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication"? Не все, что тот или иной сайт считает "общественным достоянием" может быть опубликовано на Викискладе. --Interfase (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Шаблон заменил.--Davidgasparyan2001 (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- В добавленном вами шаблоне сказано, что, что он даёт право на использование этой работы "любому в любых целях без каких бы то ни было условий, насколько это возможно в соответствии с законодательством". Автором изображения, как вы написали выше, является художник Пётр Караченцов (1907-1998). Где на сайте написано, что обладателем прав на данное изображение является библиотека им. Н.А. Некрасова, а не наследники Караченцова? Также, где на сайте написано, что оно предоставляет право на использование этой работы "любому в любых целях без каких бы то ни было условий"? Вновь напоминаю, что не все, что тот или иной сайт считает "общественным достоянием" может быть опубликовано на Викискладе. --Interfase (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Шаблон заменил.--Davidgasparyan2001 (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- И где там написано про лицензию "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication"? Не все, что тот или иной сайт считает "общественным достоянием" может быть опубликовано на Викискладе. --Interfase (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Цитирую сайт: "Мы предприняли все возможные действия, стремясь удостовериться в том, что каждое из произведений, размещенное на этом сайте в открытом доступе, перешло в общественное достояние".--Davidgasparyan2001 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Коллега, перечитайте условия использования файла на сайте-источнике, а именно сайте библиотеки. Не стоит ходить ВП:ПОКРУГУ и выражать типичный ВП:ПРОТЕСТ.--Davidgasparyan2001 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Напоминаю, что это сайт государственного бюджетного учреждения культуры города Москвы «Центральная универсальная научная библиотека имени Н.А. Некрасова». --Davidgasparyan2001 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- И что? Где там сказано, что любое размещенное на этом сайте изборажение любой может использовать в любых целях без каких бы то ни было условий? Напоминаю, что именно это является условием для размещения изображения на Викискладе. --Interfase (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- А Вы как-то по-другому понимаете словосочетание "перешло в общественное достояние"?--Davidgasparyan2001 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- См. мой пост от 18:45, 16 June 2021 и от 19:22, 20 June 2021. Там даже не написано, что оно "перешло в общественное достояние", там написано, что авторы сайта предприняли действия, стремясь удостовериться в том, чтобы это произведение перешло в общественное достояние. А это разные вещи. И "общественное достояние" понятие растяжимое. Сайт может считать произведение таковым, но для размещения его на Викискладе мы должны убедиться в том, то сайт является обладателем авторских прав на изображение и ясно разрешает любому использовать его в любых целях без каких бы то ни было условий. --Interfase (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: As written above the artist of the image Пётр Караченцов died in 1998. This will mean the image is still copyrighted, 70 years after his death, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia. Perhaps the source website made a mistake. This image cannot be maintained on Commons and has to be deleted. It can be undeleted in Can be undeleted in 70 years after 1998 so in 2069 ..
In Russian with Google translate:. --
Как написано выше, автор изображения Пётр Караченцов умер в 1998 году. Это будет означать, что изображение по-прежнему защищено авторским правом, спустя 70 лет после его смерти, согласно Правила авторского права по территории России. Возможно, исходный сайт допустил ошибку. Это изображение не может храниться в Викискладе и должно быть удалено. Его можно восстановить в Можно восстановить через 70 лет после 1998 г., то есть в 2069 г.
Under 17 U.S. Code § 105(a), works of the United States government are generally in the public domain; a work of the United States government is defined by 17 U.S. Code § 101 as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". Delivering a commencement speech, and the actions surrounding it, is not an official duty of a United States Representative, so this image cannot possibly be in the public domain under the stated rationale. Mysterymanblue 05:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. To quote from the Twitter source: "today I delivered the commencement address as the Congresswoman for this district" (emphasis mine). This statement indicates that she was acting within her role as congressperson. A congressperson's job is not only on the House floor. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle: A congressperson's job may very well not be limited to work done in the Capitol, but the statute limits U.S. government works made as part of a federal employee's "official duties". Taking part in ceremonies within the local community is certainly an unofficial duty of a congressperson, but it's hard to imagine how attending a graduation ceremony—even in one's capacity as a congressperson—is an "official duty". Mysterymanblue 06:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also relevant is this report from the House Judiciary Committee, which says the following on page 58:
- @IronGargoyle: A congressperson's job may very well not be limited to work done in the Capitol, but the statute limits U.S. government works made as part of a federal employee's "official duties". Taking part in ceremonies within the local community is certainly an unofficial duty of a congressperson, but it's hard to imagine how attending a graduation ceremony—even in one's capacity as a congressperson—is an "official duty". Mysterymanblue 06:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The general prohibition against copyright in section 105 applies to "any work of the United States Government," which is defined in section 101 as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties." Under this definition a Government official or employee would not be prevented from securing copyright in a work written at that person's own volition and outside his or her duties, even though the subject matter involves the Government work or professional field of the official or employee. Although the wording of the definition of "work of the United States Government" differs somewhat from that of the definition of "work made for hire," the concepts are intended to be construed in the same way.
- Mysterymanblue 07:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I see "official duties" referred to in the quote, but I don't see any contrast made with "unofficial duties" (is that even a term defined in the law?). I think meeting with constituents could definitely be considered an official duty. Look, for example, what the Congressional Research Service has to say:
The duties carried out by a Member of Congress are understood to include representation, legislation, and constituent service and education, as well as political and electoral activities. The expectations and duties of a Member of Congress are extensive, encompassing several roles that could be full-time jobs by themselves. Despite the acceptance of these roles and other activities as facets of the Member's job, there is no formal set of requirements or official explanation of what roles might be played as Members carry out the duties of their offices. In the absence of formal authorities, many of the responsibilities that Members of Congress have assumed over the years have evolved from the expectations of Members and their constituents.
- Mysterymanblue 07:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Upon election to Congress, Members typically develop approaches to their jobs that serve a wide range of roles and responsibilities. Given the dynamic nature of the congressional experience, priorities placed on various Member roles tend to shift in response to changes in seniority, committee assignment, policy focus, district or state priorities, institutional leadership, and electoral pressures. In response, the roles and specific duties a Member carries out are often highlighted or de-emphasized accordingly.
Although elements of all the roles described can be found among the duties performed by any Senator or Representative, the degree to which each is carried out differs among Members. Each Member may also emphasize different duties during different stages of his or her career. With no written requirements, each Member is free to define his or her own job and set his or her own priorities.
- This document later discusses what is not an "official duty" but it only does that once, citing "their reelection plans" as an excluded case. The term "unofficial duty" is not used anywhere. The post by Rep. Haaland leads me to conclude that she considers it an official duty, and that's what matters. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Side-stepping here a bit: This image is not in use, but are all agreed that it is in scope? I don't see much value in this image. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Imho the quote on the file page is de minimis, it can even be deleted if necessary. The image is in scope because it is included in a series about Deb Haaland. --Ellywa (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality (it is just text on a gradient background). I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, the threshold of originality in Chili is low, per COM:TOO Chile so this logo might be copyrighted. The image must be deleted per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality. (It is just text and various colors/shapes.) I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Logo originating in Turkey. There is no information on threshold of originality on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Turkey, so the logo must imho be deleted per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality. (It is just text and various colors/shapes.) I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Logo originating in Turkey. There is no information on threshold of originality on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Turkey, so the logo must imho be deleted per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
This file has missing license. And there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- While the essential information of the work does appear to be incorrect, the work is so simple that it falls under the threshold of originality. (It is just text and various colors/shapes.) I have updated its information, and I !vote Keep. Mysterymanblue 06:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Logo originating in Turkey. There is no information on threshold of originality on Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Turkey, so the logo must imho be deleted per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Comedy HD} Comedy HD} Comedy HD} Comedy HD} Comedy HD} Comedy HD} Comedy HD} Comedy HD} Comedy HD} Comedy HD}
Not own work owned by Televisa ItsJustdancefan (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- This deletion request is complete nonsense.
- First of all, this simple number is not a work worthy of copyright protection anyway, with the necessary level of creation. So it doesn't really matter who created the work, and there's no reason to delete it.
- Secondly, it was not the user @Leo Leyito: , but the bot @BotMultichillT: that entered the false claims in the description. This bot error cannot be a reason for deleting the file. The incorrect entries have been corrected in the meantime. Thus the deletion request is only warm air and nonsensical.
- Keep--Bestoernesto (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: logo appears below TOO per COM:TOO MX so it can be maintained on Commons. --Ellywa (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project logos of Soviet origin
[edit]This design was created by Galina Andreevna Balashova, a designer with the Soviet space program. This can be found through multiple sources, including NASA.gov: "Patch: Apollo-Soyuz Mission" and the book Galina Balashova: Architect of the Soviet Space Programme. The copyright would likely be retained by Mrs. Balashova and/or the successors of the Soviet space program. Despite being featured on the NASA website, this does not mean that the U.S. federal government's lack of copyright is somehow conferred upon non-NASA works merely hosted on a federal website.
While it is unfortunate to lose these works, an equally official ASTP patch like File:ASTP patch.png can serve as an adequate replacement.
- File:Apollo Soyuz (15012418990).jpg
- File:Apollo-Soyuz Test Project patch.svg
- File:Apsoy.png
- File:ASTP-patch.png
- File:Astp-S74-17843.jpg
- File:ASTPpatch.svg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Huntster (t @ c) 07:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps these two images were subject to deletion requests before, but the pyramid has become the main / intended subject of these two images (becoming too close and substantial in the images). Compare with the broader, French de minimis-compliant images of File:Paris Louvre Cour d'Honneur Pyramide 01.jpg, File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg, File:Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg, and File:Paris 06 2012 Louvre Panorama 3036.jpg. There is no commercial FOP in France, and it is unlikely that either Architect Pei's heirs or the French government will accept the new media-friendly freedom of panorama for modern French architecture.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Not so, the main subject is the palace, which cannot be photographed avoiding the pyramid. Indeed, the first photo has already been subjected to other deletions requests. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how the pyramid became accessory in both images. Compare to File:Paris Louvre Cour d'Honneur Pyramide 01.jpg which really shows the plaza and the palace (the pyramid became a secondary or accessory element). Unlike in both images, the pyramid became an important element (negating "accessory" inclusion). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is possible to photograph the close range of the west side of the palace without the pyramid. See Category:West facade of the Cour Carrée (Louvre). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how the pyramid became accessory in both images. Compare to File:Paris Louvre Cour d'Honneur Pyramide 01.jpg which really shows the plaza and the palace (the pyramid became a secondary or accessory element). Unlike in both images, the pyramid became an important element (negating "accessory" inclusion). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- For some clarification on French de minimis, this 2012 research article on French architectural copyright vis-à-vis French jurisprudence (which I used as a reliable source for w:Freedom of panorama article) can be referred to. A relevant part discussing the Terreaux Plaza case states:
The Cour d’appel upheld the decision on the grounds that the contentious postcards reproduced the work of art ‘in an ancillary manner, as an inseparable component of a whole belonging to a common heritage’. Also, the particular protection that is afforded to authors ‘must not affect common use and enjoyment’ of public spaces. The Cour de cassation agreed with the lower courts, stating that the work of art ‘blended in with the architectural whole of the Place des Terreaux’ in such a way that ‘the work of art was of secondary importance to the subject, which dealt with the representation of the square’.
- In both images the pyramid failed to become secondary element, and instead the palace at the background became the secondary element. Therefore the pyramid is not accessory in both images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed Louve Pyramid images have a long history of deletion requests on Wikipedia. Here is a link to a prior conversation in 2019 related to photographs of the square. The conversations on Wiki going back to at least 2013. In any case, prior Wikipedians have settled on keeping ambiguous cases which include large parts of the palace and square. I would agree with that precedent. --2601:500:4300:74:74CF:543A:5D7A:7F91 17:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Let me add that French FoP law was updated in 2016 with the following provision: "When the work has been divulged, the author can not prohibit: reproductions and representations of works of architecture and sculpture, placed permanently in public places, and created by natural persons, with the exception of commercial use." I think that settles the question. --2601:500:4300:74:74CF:543A:5D7A:7F91 18:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @2601:500:4300:74:74CF:543A:5D7A:7F91: (re: "In any case, prior Wikipedians have settled on keeping ambiguous cases...") but as per an admin here: "There is a deletion policy which states that a file can be deleted after a deletion request has been started and all interested have had time to present arguments for and against deletion. There is nothing in the policy that says that a file can only be requested for deletion once." As I found new facts or information – the degree of acceptable "accessory inclusion" as per the Place des Terreaux – a constructive deletion request can be started anew. Again, the pyramid is prominent in both images - so prominent that the museum building behind became the secondary object. Compare File:Paris July 2011-27a.jpg with File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg – the latter definitely passes French DM as the pyramid is not large enough so that it becomes an accessory or secondary element of the overall depiction.
- (Re: French FoP law was updated in 2016 with the following provision...) No, French FOP is unacceptable. It disallows commercial use. You have mentioned "with the exception of commercial use". That is not OK: as per COM:Licensing, "Media licensed exclusively under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted either." Noncommercial license via noncommercial French FOP does not conform with Commons' mission of providing freely-licensed educational files that can be used "by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- A similar case is at COM:Deletion requests/File:Town hall and cathedral of Evry.jpg, in which what appears to be the uploader claims de minimis when it fact it wasn't. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Let me add that French FoP law was updated in 2016 with the following provision: "When the work has been divulged, the author can not prohibit: reproductions and representations of works of architecture and sculpture, placed permanently in public places, and created by natural persons, with the exception of commercial use." I think that settles the question. --2601:500:4300:74:74CF:543A:5D7A:7F91 18:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep first image; Delete second image: Another thing to consider in de minimis cases is the intent of the image. The filename and description information on the first image shows that its intent was to capture the entire courtyard and not the pyramid. The second image shows that its intent was to capture the pyramid itself (based on the filename and description of "Pyramid of the Forecourt of the Louvre, Paris, Region of Île-de-France, France"), so it should be deleted as its intent was clearly to capture the pyramid. On COM:DM, it states, "It may be relevant how the image is described or classified: it will be difficult to argue de minimis if the photograph is described as illustrating "an advertising poster" and is placed within the category Advertising posters." --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- We may also want to uncategorize the first image from Category:Louvre Pyramid from the northwest if that causes trouble. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ShyAlpaca482: The composition of the two photos is similar. The second photo includes even the gardens in front of the pyramids. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ShyAlpaca482: the pyramid is too prominent and highlighted in both images, making the public domain building in the background a "secondary object". Unlike File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg in which the pyramid has served its true purpose of being an "accessory and secondary" object. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- The intention of File:Paris July 2011-27a.jpg is to highlight the pyramid while showing the courtyard. In fact, it is being used in enwiki article w:Twenty-five Year Award, labelled as "Grand Louvre – Phase 1, Paris" and the architect, "Pei Cobb Freed & Partners". Grand Louvre is a project that, according to enwiki article w:Louvre Pyramid, "was announced in 1981 by François Mitterrand, then President of France. In 1983 the Chinese-American architect I. M. Pei was selected as its architect." The image clearly has intention to highlight the pyramid in the guise of a seemingly de minimis courtyard view. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I oppose your comments. Behind the pyramid, public domain building is clearly seen. So the deletion request of first image is correctly ended. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: nope. The fact that it was used to illustrate the project which involved the construction of the pyramid by I.M. Pei clearly shows the true intent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
Oppose Skyline photos or cityscapes photos containing a building located in a country without freedom of panorama uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are being used to describe the building on Wikipedia. When that happens, there are too many Skyline photos or cityscapes photos containing a building that need to be deleted. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: if the intention of the image is to highlight the pyramid itself, then it fails DM. By judging the analysis of the Terreaux case as I presented above, the "accessory" inclusion is equivalent to "secondary" inclusion. IMO the pyramid has become the main focus and the building at the background has become secondary. And wait, don't be confused with skylines or cityscapes. This image is not a skyline nor a cityscape. It is a view of the courtyard with the pyramid as a prominent feature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Replace a word 'skyline or cityscape' with the Louvre and see these images. The pyramid is clearly incidental. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: if I can remember correctly the best comparison is that of File:Meralco Avenue.jpg. I also claimed that it just focused on the road, but one user disagrees saying that the photo is clearly intentionally framed to include the whole body of a complex of two buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment While I am not familiar enough with Filipino law to make a judgement call as of this moment, it should be noted that Filipino de minimis regulation may differ from that of France. Note the comment posted by User:Mrcl lxmna on the deletion request you referenced: "The intellectual property code of the phils or ra 8293 doesnt have the concept of de minimis or so callef [sic] incidental inclusions." --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: if I can remember correctly the best comparison is that of File:Meralco Avenue.jpg. I also claimed that it just focused on the road, but one user disagrees saying that the photo is clearly intentionally framed to include the whole body of a complex of two buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- In addition, the first image is decided to keep from the last two deletion discussions. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Re this, see an admin's comment here. "There is nothing in the policy that says that a file can only be requested for deletion once." As long as the DR is constructive and has basis, the file can be renominated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
I withdraw my nomination and leave the judgment to the admins. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
- Re this, see an admin's comment here. "There is nothing in the policy that says that a file can only be requested for deletion once." As long as the DR is constructive and has basis, the file can be renominated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Replace a word 'skyline or cityscape' with the Louvre and see these images. The pyramid is clearly incidental. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: if the intention of the image is to highlight the pyramid itself, then it fails DM. By judging the analysis of the Terreaux case as I presented above, the "accessory" inclusion is equivalent to "secondary" inclusion. IMO the pyramid has become the main focus and the building at the background has become secondary. And wait, don't be confused with skylines or cityscapes. This image is not a skyline nor a cityscape. It is a view of the courtyard with the pyramid as a prominent feature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345:
- @Ox1997cow: nope. The fact that it was used to illustrate the project which involved the construction of the pyramid by I.M. Pei clearly shows the true intent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I don't believe the original intention of the first image is to highlight the pyramid itself. Even though the image may have been misused on a couple of pages by other users, the original intent of the image should be considered, not what the image is currently used for. The uploader, User:Alvesgaspar, did not add the image to the page w:Twenty-five Year Award. It was added by someone else who may or may not understand de minimis rules. I do agree, however, that the image was misused on pages such as w:Twenty-five Year Award. We should definitely add a de minimis warning tag to the image itself, in addition to considering its removal from the page w:Twenty-five Year Award.
- I concur with your judgement that the original intent of the second image is to primarily display the pyramid and that it should be deleted. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Alvesgaspar: Pinging User:Alvesgaspar so they have an opportunity to express their original intent when taking the image. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ShyAlpaca482: there is already a {{NoFoP-France}} tag, but it has been misused lately. Some of the newer users recently try to evade admins / other users by uploading blatant no FOP violations and adding no-FOP tags. I usually place no-FOP tags on top of description boxes and not on licensing sections, as there are no FOP licenses from the artworks themselves (and no FOP tags are more of problem or restriction tags). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: There's nothing stopping the file from having both {{NoFoP-France}} and {{De minimis}}, and some files do
. I think {{De minimis}} is appropriate because this file is problematic when it comes to the issue of de minimis (it has been the subject of three deletion requests now, counting this one). I also have no problem with moving {{NoFoP-France}} to the top of the page if necessary. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: There's nothing stopping the file from having both {{NoFoP-France}} and {{De minimis}}, and some files do
- @JWilz12345: I oppose your comments. Behind the pyramid, public domain building is clearly seen. So the deletion request of first image is correctly ended. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- We may also want to uncategorize the first image from Category:Louvre Pyramid from the northwest if that causes trouble. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Info My intent was to photograph the Palais du Louvre-Cour Napoleon, which is impossible without including the Louvre Pyramid. That is clear in my nomination of the photo to Commons:Valued image candidates/Paris July 2011-27a.jpg. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. It is a bit subjective when we can call a part of a photo de minimis. In this case I consider it not de minimis. On this example, File:Paris Louvre Cour d'Honneur Pyramide 01.jpg, the pyramid is much smaller and a de minimis template is included on the file page. Regrettably the nonexisting French FOP. --Ellywa (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim: small size Rohalamin (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Rohalamin has nominated dozens of images for deletion with this exact same poor argument. This is uncalled for and is frankly just disruption, as well as hurting Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, pcp, and COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. @Nahankhaneh: Why are larger versions available on the Internet? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: The photo is available with more pixels on the web, like https://cdn.ilna.news/servev2/LLrLAgctYokL/RL54z_netUE,/2.jpg. But this is just a blown up version, highly pixelated if you zoom in, so perhaps copied from Commons. --Ellywa (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrecht bei der Währung Andorras unklar, in solchen Fällen ist es sinnvoller, solche Bilder nicht hochzuladen, bzw wieder zu entfernen Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:Currency#Map: No information, assume "Not OK". -M.nelson (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Adding File:Andorrese-euromunten.jpg. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark of M.nelson. @Josve05a: could you be so kind to make a new DR for the image you found? I cannot deleted it now after only one day. Thanks. --Ellywa (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No source 83.200.34.82 09:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The tree image appears to be preexisting, and its reproduction is a copyright violation. See the cover of this book, published 2015 (before upload here), that bears the same tree image. Mysterymanblue 00:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination, discussion and per COM:PRP. Uploader did not comment or explain the copyright situation of this image. --Ellywa (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No source 83.200.34.82 09:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: consists of elements which are in public domain, but per COM:DUPE with File:Drapeau des Igawawen v. 2.png. --Ellywa (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No source 83.200.34.82 09:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, consist of elements which are in Public domain. --Ellywa (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No Exif, unused, new user, resolution low, as if taken from a web page , fotos taken at COP25 or similar, most likely by an accredited fotographer/journalist. probably COPYVIO, but permission by OTRS possible.
- File:Nicki Becker Escazu.jpg
- File:Nicole Becker junto a otros activistas como Greta Thungerg en la COP 25.jpg
- File:Nicole Becker.jpg
C.Suthorn (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hey C.Suthorn is it possible to keep at least the second photo? They've been uploaded by the person depicted on the photo. If she has to go through OTRS please let me know so I can help her out. cheers, --Scann (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- All three fotos have been uploaded as own work. If the person who has uploaded the images is depicted in the second (and it is not a selfie) this is wrong. The fotographer has to be named as the author and yes it would be wise to go through OTRS (the photographer(s) have to give permission). --C.Suthorn (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks C.Suthorn. The photos were taken by her sister apparently, I'll ask her to send the standard message to OTRS then. Scann (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you take this work on you, you could also correct Thungerg to Thunberg in the file name, add descriptions in english, expand descriptions (city, reason of event), add categories. It would make the images so more usable and easier to find. --C.Suthorn (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks C.Suthorn. The photos were taken by her sister apparently, I'll ask her to send the standard message to OTRS then. Scann (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- All three fotos have been uploaded as own work. If the person who has uploaded the images is depicted in the second (and it is not a selfie) this is wrong. The fotographer has to be named as the author and yes it would be wise to go through OTRS (the photographer(s) have to give permission). --C.Suthorn (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Ticket:2021061410006801 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, OTRS has not resulted in sucessful permission, so photo's must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not own work owned by Televisa ItsJustdancefan (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Delete Not own work Fr4930 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- This deletion request is complete nonsense.
- First of all, this simple logo is not a copyrightable work anyway, because it does not have the required level of creation. There are tens of thousands of these at Commons (e.g. over 77,000 here or over 45,000 here), which only require the license component {{PD-logo}}.
- So it doesn't matter who created the work and there is no reason to delete it.
- There are or were only errors in the description, but these are no reason for deletion.
- Secondly, it was not the user @Leo Leyito: , but the bot @BotMultichillT: that entered the false claims in the description. This bot error cannot be a reason for deleting the file. The incorrect entries have been corrected in the meantime. Thus the deletion request is only warm air and nonsensical.
- First of all, this simple logo is not a copyrightable work anyway, because it does not have the required level of creation. There are tens of thousands of these at Commons (e.g. over 77,000 here or over 45,000 here), which only require the license component {{PD-logo}}.
- Keep--Bestoernesto (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete Borderline, but the colour selection/gradient and use of the star symbol seem to exceed "Letters, digits or isolated colors" and "Names and titles or isolated phrases" in COM:TOO Mexico. -M.nelson (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion, above TOO in mexico. --Ellywa (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Wrong identification. Author died 13 years before this event Каракорум (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Agree with the nominator that the artist can't be en:Pyotr Zakharov-Chechenets as the event happened in 1859. However, it seems like it might be old enough to be {{PD-old}}, like the similar image of the same event File:Plenenie shamilja (Rubo-1886).jpg. -M.nelson (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination and likely copyright vio. I found a part of this photo copyrighted on Getty images. Date or author is not clear. --Ellywa (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
