Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/08/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
je ne connais pas 24.54.59.87 02:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative Work. (Per tagging, one might argue about the logos being under TOO, but not the photo of Dobbs) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
copy https://editoramultifoco.com.br/loja/product/cronicas-estelares-livro-de-memorias/ Sérgio Castelar (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted CV -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
per COM:TOO Australia, as the threshold of originality in Australia is very low. Bidgee (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom, also dubious license claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, clearly not CC-BY-SA based on age. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom, false claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, clearly not CC-BY-SA based on age. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Non-free screenshot of YouTube Twotwofourtysix (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted DW -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted DW by Flickr photographer. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Newfoundland is not a state of the U.S., this so-called presidential election map is fake Ycleymans (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Newfoundland is not a state of the U.S., nor does it have county's. This so-called presidential election map is fake. Part of a history by this user of posting fake files presented as if they were real. Ycleymans (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Newfoundland is not a state of the U.S., nor does it have county's. This so-called presidential election map is fake. Part of a history by this user of posting fake files presented as if they were real. Ycleymans (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted prank or private fantasy; OOS. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Newfoundland is not a state of the U.S., nor does it have county's. This so-called presidential election map is fake. Part of a history by this user of posting fake files presented as if they were real. Ycleymans (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted prank or private fantasy, OOS -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
There is no fair use at all on Commons and templates like this one cannot be used crosswiki. Achim (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, nothing to discuss. --Polarlys (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. Appears to be lifted from the web. Do a Google search. True, the shirt colour and background colour seem to have changed but by pose and composition this is identical in all other respects. At best it is a derivative work with the source undeclared. Headlock0225 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Doing a bit of photoshop to a copyrighted image does not transfer the copyright to the photoshop editor. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Eevee01 (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 14:52, 6 August 2021 UTC: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1) --Krdbot 20:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation: https://github.com/xayahrainie4793/non-single-digit-primes/blob/bdb37583ce55be599de8bc29259c0efba924a091/minimal%20primes%20in%20bases%202%20to%2016.pdf , User is a Long-term abuser 1233 (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Per above. SCP-2000 12:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)- Delete per nom. 人人生來平等 TALK 12:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
No education merit. No possibility of reuse. Summary seems to be gibberish. Abusive upload. Tagishsimon (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 15:08, 6 August 2021 UTC: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1) --Krdbot 20:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The original photo from which this has been cropped is licensed as CC-BY-2.0 but this file has a fake claim of authorship by User:Gardenparty and a fake claim to relicense the crop under CC-BY-SA-3.0. If Commons is committed to abiding by license requirements, this photo crop has been hosted illegally for almost 8 years and must be deleted. 2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 16:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Based on actions elsewhere, I’d like to clarify the reason for the DR. The license added by the uploader IS NOT the issue. The issue is that the copyright holder licensed the original as a CC-BY-2.0 i.e. re-users MUST attribute correctly. Please read the words of the license carefully.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit
- If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. CC licenses prior to Version 4.0 also require you to provide the title of the material if supplied, and may have other slight differences.
- More info. , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- The uploader failed to give the name of the creator and a link to the material (the Flickr page). The file must be deleted as a copyright violation. Please do not just pre-emptively dismiss a DR with a simple license change. --2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 18:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. CC-BY license requires attribution. Putting a false authorship claim on someone else's CC-BY work is a copyright violation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The original photo from which this has been cropped is licensed as CC-BY-2.0 but this file has a fake claim of authorship by User:Gardenparty and a fake claim to relicense the crop under CC-BY-SA-3.0. If Commons is committed to abiding by license requirements, this photo crop has been hosted illegally for almost 8 years and must be deleted. 2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 16:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Based on actions elsewhere, I’d like to clarify the reason for the DR. The license added by the uploader IS NOT the issue. The issue is that the copyright holder licensed the original as a CC-BY-2.0 i.e. re-users MUST attribute correctly. Please read the words of the license carefully.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit
- If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. CC licenses prior to Version 4.0 also require you to provide the title of the material if supplied, and may have other slight differences.
- More info, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- The uploader failed to give the name of the creator and a link to the material (the Flickr page). The file must be deleted as a copyright violation. Please do not just pre-emptively dismiss a DR with a simple license change. --2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 18:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted fraudulent authorship claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The original photo from which this has been cropped is licensed as CC-BY-2.0 but this file has a fake claim of authorship by User:Gardenparty and a fake claim to relicense the crop under CC-BY-SA-3.0. If Commons is committed to abiding by license requirements, this photo crop has been hosted illegally for almost 8 years and must be deleted. 2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 16:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: and license fixed. --Achim (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry @Achim55: but you clearly haven’t understood the reason for the DR. The license IS NOT the issue. The issue is that the copyright holder licensed the original as a CC-BY-2.0 i.e. re-users MUST attribute correctly. Please read the words of the license carefully.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit
- If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. CC licenses prior to Version 4.0 also require you to provide the title of the material if supplied, and may have other slight differences.
- More info, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- The uploader failed to give the name of the creator and a link to the material (the Flickr page). The file must be deleted as a copyright violation. Please do not just pre-emptively dismiss a DR with a simple license change. --2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 18:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
IP, you are right, but that is not a sufficient reason for deletion because IMO the problem can be resolved by editing the file page in an adequate manner. --Achim (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Achim55: but this is the quandary. I looked at Commons:Deletion policy#Missing legal information under which I could have tagged the photo with one of the tags like "nsd" but I know that would have been dismissed because so many Commons administrators misunderstand the licenses. This file and the others I’ve put in for DR should have been NSD'd a long time ago but I felt a DR would be more useful for discussion. My understanding is that the original license terms were broken by User:Gardenparty. The only solution I can see that satisfies legal requirements is to delete these files and re-upload with correct information. Even if the attribution is added on now, it is too late and looks like lip-service is being paid to licensing. However, these files are not used elsewhere in wiki-world, so there seems little point in re-uploading them. Can you see my quandary? --2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 19:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- If your rationale had been "lack of COM:EDUSE" I'd say "delete". But in general I don't support deletions of files that would be kept if someone else did upload them correctly licensed. Btw even my last upload had been deleted previously... --Achim (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted False authorship claim, violation of license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio: Taken from https://brixenbressanone.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/citybus-brixen-der-fahrplan-citybus-bressanone-orario/ - This was uploaded to that website in 16/03/2009 however it was uploaded here in September 2009 - Listing here due to the fact it's been here for 11 years. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom (Link predates Commons copy; file not in use.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused promotional logo Ixfd64 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Advertising only by uploader; unused after 5 years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Picture created after 9th July 2020 Contributers2020Talk to me here 03:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep Image uploaded to Pixabay in October 2013, before they removed the CC license. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry @A1Cafel: I closed this thing because the date on the page was wrong, the Pixabay was correct one. I closed the discussion here, removed the delete template, written KEPT template on talk page and changed the date so no other reviewers can be tricked by the date. I am very sorry. Closing the request again because we know this is a keep. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 04:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Farhan Rana Rajpoot Account (talk · contribs)
[edit]Used for x-wiki self promo. out of scope
- File:Farhan Rana Rajpoot (Logo).png
- File:Farhan Rana Rajpoot (Commons).jpg
- File:Farhan Rana Rajpoot Image.png
- File:Farhan Rana Rajpoot Image (cropped).jpg
Minoraxtalk 10:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The wrong person is listed in this photo Bisquitedits (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the person on the photo is indeed Randall Woodfin, looking at the source. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Closing this. Even though it's my file this nomination is not factual. That is indeed the subject. --Missvain (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
no license and permission KodokunaSmile (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 19:50, 7 August 2021 UTC: No permission since 29 July 2021 --Krdbot 02:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No use to the project; personal images of non-notable people Sjö (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No use to the project; personal images of non-notable person Sjö (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
No use to the project; personal images of non-notable person Sjö (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope; not useful to the project Sjö (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of these are not selfies so they are unlikely to be own work. Images of non-notable musical artist trying to promote his own work. Out of project scope. Commons is not a free webhost.
- File:Mezanur R Emon 7.jpg
- File:Mezanur R Emon 6.jpg
- File:Mezanur R Emon 5.jpg
- File:Mezanur R Emon 4.jpg
- File:Mezanur R Emon 1.jpg
- File:Mezanur R Emon 3.jpg
- File:Mezanur R Emon 2.jpg
- File:Ed Sheeran with Mezanur R Emon.jpg
- File:Mezanur R Emon.jpg
- File:An Intervening Time.jpg
- File:Mezanurremon.jpg
- File:Paheislam.jpg
IronGargoyle (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
no licence / probably copyviol — danyele 22:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Blackcat 
17:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
no licence / probably copyviol — danyele 22:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely copviol from Getty images, dowloaded from internet. --Sailko (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Blackcat 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
file in copyviol, cf. Google Images — danyele 22:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Blackcat 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be copied off of Facebook -- see https://m.facebook.com/Naustbukta-Eiendom-As-355053801745580/ . Does not seem to be likely as "own work" (meaning the uploader was the photographer), and even if it was, we would need confirmation via the COM:VRT process, or a free license placed on the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
COM:OOS, small file with no evident educational use Buidhe (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 08:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 08:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Unuser personal image, out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Solomon203 (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Solomon203 (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The uploader's own attempt at physics: Out of scope Hoary (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Out of commons scope. I can think of no conceivable project use for some random person's nonsensical attempt at proving Einstein wrong. Commons is not a host for essays or a publisher of "scientific" papers. 192.76.8.91 18:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 12:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahmed Hamedd (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope
--Alaa :)..! 12:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope
- File:شهادةنسب لعبدالله محمد عزام.jpg
- File:عبدالله محمد عزام في مرسمه.jpg
- File:عبدالله محمد عزام .jpg
--Alaa :)..! 12:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by حمدي القروي (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope
- File:مقدم برنامج عرب شو.jpg
- File:المستشار القانوني حمدي القروي.jpg
- File:حمدي القروي.jpg
- File:علم الولايات العربية المتحدة.jpg
--Alaa :)..! 13:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yiannis314159 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wittawin Panta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ing.convers (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope and seems to only be here for advertising purposes Whisperjanes (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope, selfie - not realistically useful for an educational purpose Whisperjanes (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Some of the participants in the Natives and Invasives workshop drove around the park to get a look at some examples of each. (32937068815).jpg
[edit]Poor quality image - Essentially this is a selfie of random/unknown people - wont ever be used, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sunilkumar64742 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of unused personal photos out of project scope. Commons is not a free webhost. Many of these are watermarked and none seem to be actually taken by the subject. It's unclear if the subject even has the rights to release as "own work".
- File:MD skills.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 75.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 74.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 73.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 72.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 71.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 70.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 69.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 68.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 67.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 66.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 65.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 64.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 63.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 62.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 61.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 60.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 59.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 58.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 57.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 56.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 55.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 54.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 53.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 52.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 51.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 50.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 48.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 49.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 47.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 46.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 43.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 44.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 42.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 41.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 40.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 39.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 38.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 37.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 35.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 36.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 34.jpg
- File:Sunil kumar 3.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 33.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 32.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 31.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 30.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 29.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 28.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 27.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 26.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 25.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 24.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 23.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 22.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 21.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 20.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 19.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 18.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 17.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 16.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 15.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 14.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 13.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 12.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 11.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 10.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 9.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 8.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 7.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 6.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 5.jpg
- File:MD Skills.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar kamana.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar photographer.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 4.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 3.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar 2.jpg
- File:PAN 9042.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar.jpg
- File:Suni kumar photographer.jpg
- File:Sunil Kumar .jpg
IronGargoyle (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Not all but the majority of images are fine and could be put in model related categories or sitting down categories etc etc. Of course they need new names but that can easily be sorted. I'll work on these over the week depending on the weather in the UK (I'd rather make the most of the weather as opposed to sat indoors all day on Commons). –Davey2010Talk 18:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- How are these fine? I'm legitimately baffled how you could think these satisfy COM:EDUSE. And beyond that, either the photographer is Sunil Kumar and is engaging in self-promotion with some unknown model (so COM:CSD#G10). Or the images are of Sunil Kumar (again how do they not fit COM:CSD#F10?) and he doesn't have the copyright to the images because someone else took them. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- I should add that this vanity page on English Wikipedia is particularly illustrative of how out of scope these images are. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- How are these fine? I'm legitimately baffled how you could think these satisfy COM:EDUSE. And beyond that, either the photographer is Sunil Kumar and is engaging in self-promotion with some unknown model (so COM:CSD#G10). Or the images are of Sunil Kumar (again how do they not fit COM:CSD#F10?) and he doesn't have the copyright to the images because someone else took them. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - IronGargoyle as stated above I believe some of the images were fine for certain categories (such as modelling, sitting on the floor/bench, etc etc) however as you state (and which I always forget!) is that Sunil isn't the photographer so therefore without the photographers consent there's not we can do. I've asked Sunil if he could email
OTRSVRT but until he does there's not much for us to do here except delete. –Davey2010Talk 19:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Self promotion image uploaded by subject. Not used in any articles. William Graham (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Afeef (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
it seems a copyvio, no EXIF and uploaded by anonymous user and this is the only edit, I found this picture in high quality here, the depicted person used this picture in his FB page and his accounts (in 2017) without mention to the uploader's name.
I couldn't find the main source of picture but when I use Google search (here) I found some results from earlier date and that is mean it published before he upload it. -- Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:2020 Summer Olympics team numbers.svg SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:2020 Summer Olympics team numbers.svg SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a crop of a photo available on Facebook here. Unsure if that is the original either, but not sure this really is "own work", and we probably need COM:VRT confirmation if it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
To distinguish (+)-borneol and (-)-borneol, stereochemical information is needed, but it is missing from this image. There are plenty of correct alternatives in Category:Borneol such as the pair File:Borneol.svg and File:(-)-Borneol.svg that can be used instead. Innerstream (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This seems like a fine picture of a notable actress. The YouTube CC licence is appropriate. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It looks fine for me. The resolution is still within the acceptable range. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Polarlys (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused private photo of non-notable person George Chernilevsky talk 02:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by USEditor.2007 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of political and album cover images from the 1950s and 1960s. Uploader claims CC-BY-4.0, but this is implausible because of age. None are old enough for {{PD-US}} however. The Nixon image can likely be deleted as an exact duplicate of an existing commons image.
- File:GovernorNelsonRockefeller.jpg
- File:RichardNixonVP.png
- File:Everettdirksen.jpg
- File:Henrycabotlodgejr.jpg
- File:JFK 1950s.jpg
- File:JFK-1.jpg
- File:My Special Angel.png
- File:RickIs21.jpg
- File:Rickis21.jpg
IronGargoyle (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vistafjord (talk · contribs)
[edit]Exceptionally low quality images. Most seem to be scans or pictures of other images, so unlikely to be own work. The remaining images are selfies and images of pets.
- File:Lawhillboat.jpg
- File:Cyclop Boat.jpg
- File:Container ship Del Monte Valiant docked 2021.jpg
- File:HL7443.jpg
- File:Big Gigantic Boat.jpg
- File:Portrait of Jaden.jpg
- File:JADNMATIAS.jpg
- File:FloFlo.jpg
- File:Heroic Leader.jpg
IronGargoyle (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes please delete. The "image" purporting to be Lawhill is laughably inaccurate as well as being blurred etc. (Lawhill did not carry Royal sails and unusually, its topgallant masts were abaft the topmasts. This is therefore some other barque.) Nickm57 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Adding the following files to the deletion request
- Comment Adding the following files to the deletion request
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Editor has uploaded other images of this subject which are clearly copyvios. Exif data inconsistent with other uploads. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 07:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Used in his Instagram profile before. Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 07:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, apparent screenshot, no useful description. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & Infrog- Out of scope. –Davey2010Talk 18:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope, a random person. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 03:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fidanabaszada (talk · contribs)
[edit]Zinaida Serebriakova died in 1967. She also was French citizen, so {{PD-RusEmpire}} may not apply.
- File:ALEKSANDR.jpg
- File:Zinaida-Serebriakova-Self-portrait-4-.jpg
- File:Sleeping-katya-1945.jpg!Large.jpg
- File:Boris-1915.jpg
- File:Avtoportret31.jpg
- File:House-of-cards-1919.jpg!Large.jpg
- File:Sleeping-peasant-1917.jpg!Large.jpg
- File:Country-girl-1906.jpg
- File:Yelena-lansere.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document. Should be moved as w:en:Help:Table to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The painter of this self-portrait, Erwin Bowien, died in 1972. So the picture is not yet in the public domain (70 years pma). The uploader declared it as "own work"; which can only be applicable to the reproduction, but not the painting itself. As no information is given concerning the right of the uploader to publish the picture, this is a clear case of copyvio. Furthermore, the image is marked "Copyright (©)". Jossi (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
no educational value, uploaded for use on attack page Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Non-free art from Czechoslovakia, 1963 (derivative of a Soviet publicity photo of same year). Retired electrician (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Poorly composed poorly lit penis pic; we have many much better photos of very common object. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons scope: too blurred to be of any use MPF (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted album cover by a group not associated with the Flickr account Ytoyoda (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I found this image at https://search.creativecommons.org/photos/b807e37c-6836-4baf-a28b-0be0d7925be4 and https://www.flickr.com/photos/55497864@N00/37676627435
- At both places it is labelled with Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) Bodney (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Bodney: The license is identical because search.creativecommons.org is a search engine that crawls image archives, like Flickr, for Creative Commons-licensed images. It's always going to spit out information from Flickr. Search.creativecommons.org doesn't actually host the image - it's just pointing you to the Flickr page.
- More importantly, I think you missed my point: Yes, the Flickr user licensed the image under a CC license, but it doesn't seem like the Flickr user owns the rights to an album cover image for an artist that they're not associated with. This is known as license laundering and happens often, intentionally or unintentionally. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Could be eligible for local upload on a wiki that allows unfree files. [24Cr][talk] 19:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright Monkey1987king (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright: https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps/stephen-kerr Monkey1987king (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Editor has uploaded other images of this subject which are clearly copyvios. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Editor has uploaded other images of this subject which are clearly copyvios. Exif data inconsistent with other uploads. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope/ Used for advertising only Hoo man (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Content created as advertisement. --Wdwd (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Very unlikely the user's own work. https://aircraftnoise.sydneyairport.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/flight-paths-550x330.jpg Bidgee (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
[False claim of Own work. So, this file is a possible violation of personal copyrights.] Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo by non-contributors. --Wdwd (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tang Wei
[edit]Not YouTube uploader's own work. (credited to Youku) Original source needed for license verification.
Minoraxtalk 04:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tang Wei
[edit]Doubt this is the youtube uploader's own work. Interview was done by Youku.
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The Youku logo is all over the place in the youtube films. The youtube channel is not of Youku, so the licensing with CCBYSA on Youtube seems unjustified. --Ellywa (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" like billboards in Singapore A1Cafel (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Billboards in Estonia
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Estonia
- File:Alcohol beverage advertisement in Tallinn.JPG
- File:Billboard in Kristiine.jpg
- File:Billboard in Tallinn 2004.jpg
- File:Billboard in Tallinn May 2004.jpg
- File:Elioni Digi TV reklaam.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Billboards in Ghana
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Ghana
- File:National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka - Barber's signboard - Accra city in Ghana - Collected in 2005 - Gift of Masako Takahashi.jpg
- File:National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka - Barber's signboard - Accra city in Ghana - Collected in 2005 - Gift of Masako Takahashi2.jpg
- File:National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka - Barber's signboard - Accra city in Ghana - Collected in 2005 - Gift of Masako Takahashi3.jpg
- File:National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka - Barber's signboard - Accra city in Ghana - Collected in 2005 - Gift of Masako Takahashi4.jpg
- File:National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka - Barber's signboard - Accra city in Ghana - Collected in 2005 - Gift of Masako Takahashi5.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission for shown artwork. --Wdwd (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim. The uploader is the subject depicted in this photo, and uncropped versions found on other websites (like here) indicate that this is a not a self-taken photo. Requires COM:VRT permission from the original photographer. ✗plicit 05:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – Original uncropped photo [1] found on [2]. I'm guessing the photographer is Nick Telford given the similarities in this photo and the photo taken here [3] --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Uploader suggests they are the person in the photo, need permission from the photographer, who is apparently listed in the metadata Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo by non-contributor. --Wdwd (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Techhistorians writes about tech companies; that does not make him the copyright owner of these companies' logos Hiro (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: as PD_Textlogo. --Wdwd (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
no license and permission KodokunaSmile (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
no license and permission KodokunaSmile (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted, see log. --Wdwd (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
copyright infringement 94.45.0.106 06:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
copyright infringement https://novosibirsk.bezformata.com/listnews/ngu-projdyot-v-novosibirskom-akademgorodke/50829896/ 94.45.0.106 06:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Low resolution with no EXIF data. Considering the other images uploaded by the user, it's probably a copyrighted image. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Crappy crop based on my first Wollek picture that was taken from a colour print and was now replaced by a scan from the original negative. RX-Guru (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan A1Cafel (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan A1Cafel (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan A1Cafel (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Lebanon A1Cafel (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in North Macedonia A1Cafel (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
COM:OOS no evident educational use for a low-res, unidentified jellyfish Buidhe (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep The image is not so bad. We have other images in Category:Jellyfish with less resolution. And a biologist may identify it. --ProfessorX (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
As can be seen here, it's an album promotion photo. Flickr laundering. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
COM:OOS #Excluded educational content Buidhe (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom; contains nothing educational other than raw text. -M.nelson (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio, Flickr laundering. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
advertising only — billinghurst sDrewth 08:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Sudan A1Cafel (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for indoor works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems that the uploader reuploaded the photo. Same as the reason given in previous deletion request. No FoP for indoor works in Taiwan. The current discussion on Taiwanese FoP is nothing to do with indoor works. Teetrition (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
No more picture Navigator84 (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: File is empty. --Wdwd (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep the copyright of the billboard itself is the property of the Flickr account owner. SecretName101 (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per user:SecretName101. --Wdwd (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan A1Cafel (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on this? Which part of the photo are you claiming is not acceptable for use on Wikimedia Commons? Thanks. Brianreading (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- The billboard is COM:DW. A cropped version of the photo without the billboard would be acceptable for Commons. The current photo shows too much of the billboard to be de minimis. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Vintage look, but a quick websearch says the sign was installed in 1998. Unless the advertising art can be shown to be copy of copyright-expired older artwork or is free licensed for some other reason, photo is derivative work CV. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be an advertisement and is out of scope / not educationally useful Whisperjanes (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Häagen-Dazs, LAWSON, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, 札幌, 北海道, 日本, 華もち きなこ黒みつ, ハーゲンダッツ , さっぽろし, ほっかいどう, にっぽん, にほん (16099894564).jpg
[edit]COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by 1989 at 22:04, 5 August 2019 UTC: Derivative work of non-free content (F3) --Krdbot 01:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Häagen-Dazs, LAWSON, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, 札幌, 北海道, 日本, 華もち きなこ黒みつ, ハーゲンダッツ , さっぽろし, ほっかいどう, にっぽん, にほん (16099894564).jpg
[edit]Copyvio? 62.216.207.126 10:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted for second time; same DW Flickr image previously deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Häagen-Dazs, LAWSON, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, 札幌, 北海道, 日本, 華もち みたらし胡桃, ハーゲンダッツ , さっぽろし, ほっかいどう, にっぽん, にほん (16536099019).jpg
[edit]COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by 1989 at 22:04, 5 August 2019 UTC: Derivative work of non-free content (F3) --Krdbot 01:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Häagen-Dazs, LAWSON, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, 札幌, 北海道, 日本, 華もち みたらし胡桃, ハーゲンダッツ , さっぽろし, ほっかいどう, にっぽん, にほん (16536099019).jpg
[edit]Copyvio? 62.216.207.126 10:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
ReDeleted, same DW Flickr image previously deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any evidence of a CC license on the source given Gbawden (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused private artwork. Also copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 12:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, OOS unused private image. (The underlying image of which this is derivative is PD-NASA, so that was not a factor.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that it's under CC-BY-SA Danu Widjajanto (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that it's under CC-BY-SA Danu Widjajanto (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted; source site has clear copyright notice and no indication of claimed CC-by license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
File:U.S. Navy Culinary Specialist 3rd Class Elizabeth Zannone reviews a recipe "Iron Chef" competition aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) in the Atlantic Ocean May 17, 2013 130517-N-XE109-142.jpg
[edit]I am the person in the picture and I would like for it to be removed. 138.162.0.42 13:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I am then wondering why the original photo is still online in the DoD Visual Information Archives. Did you try to get that down as well? Or the other copies like that at Amazon? We can consider taking this down here at Commons as this picture is currently unused and not of great importance. But as long the original photo is still published in the DoD archives this can continue to reappear on Commons and elsewhere. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment An option would be to remove your name from the copy at Commons. Would this be acceptable to you? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The nominator should verify that they are the subject, perhaps via COM:VRT. Brianjd (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- This could by done by contacting the support team. However, given the IP address, we already know that this is coming from a member of the US Navy. I have no reason to doubt this. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Closed as Kept. Copy of free licensed image available elsewhere online; no particular reason why it should be removed offered. (Comment: No reason why this would be a problem evident. If there is some problem, nominator may wish to have the DOD versions removed &/or contact Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team if there is a problem with this being on Commons that they do not wish to discuss on a public site.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Original research. There was no modern typeface in Liang. Konno Yumeto 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Apparent fictional vanity creation; OOS. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Original research. Konno Yumeto 14:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted fictional vanity creation, OOS. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
File:RJ Nieto during a Philippine Senate hearing on the Proliferation of Fake and or Misleading News and False Information.jpg
[edit]PTV videos are not free, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJCUbMaY593_4SN1QPG7NFQ Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- PTV is Philippine government produced, and is (edit:) Public Domain under Philippine laws. -Object404 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines -Object404 (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- See also: ptni.gov.ph -> scroll down: "Republic of the Philippines All content is in the public domain unless otherwise stated." -Object404 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- :: @Object404: The fact that PTV is partly or fully funded by the government has nothing to do with copyright, though it's listed in en:Government-owned and controlled corporation. According to PTV website content is Copyright © 2018 Peoples Television and and "may be downloaded or printed for your own personal and non-commercial use only" which doesn't fit Commons requirements. And as you can see, it's "otherwise stated". --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Kindly wait for consensus on the Philippine "Tambayan Philippines" talk page on the status of PTV4 material before deleting. A siginificant chunk of Philippine government-produced minutae on the web can be inconsistent, hence the conflicting statements of copyright and public domain in the same page. -Object404 (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Also, it's not just government-funded, it is also state-operated and controlled. -Object404 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Kindly wait for consensus on the Philippine "Tambayan Philippines" talk page on the status of PTV4 material before deleting. A siginificant chunk of Philippine government-produced minutae on the web can be inconsistent, hence the conflicting statements of copyright and public domain in the same page. -Object404 (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- :: @Object404: The fact that PTV is partly or fully funded by the government has nothing to do with copyright, though it's listed in en:Government-owned and controlled corporation. According to PTV website content is Copyright © 2018 Peoples Television and and "may be downloaded or printed for your own personal and non-commercial use only" which doesn't fit Commons requirements. And as you can see, it's "otherwise stated". --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- See also: ptni.gov.ph -> scroll down: "Republic of the Philippines All content is in the public domain unless otherwise stated." -Object404 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines -Object404 (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I've applied the proper licensing template for the said media file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov It is "a work created by an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, as part of his regularly prescribed official duties" -Object404 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)... "any work is ineligible for copyright under the terms of Part IV, Chapter I, Section 171.11 and Part IV, Chapter IV, Section 176 of Republic Act No. 8293 and Republic Act No. 10372, as amended, unless otherwise noted". --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is not otherwise noted on the PTV stream the work is sourced from. -Object404 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- The "otherwise noted" is not actually in the text of the law: [4]. This "otherwise noted" is mainly for content whose copyright is owned by third parties and has been transferred to the government, but this sourcing should be explicitly indicated. Most PH government sources and websites lazily slap a "Copyright X" note in footers and footnotes because of ignorance of the law and this is not really a valid claim. —seav (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Seav: That PTV add a copyright footer only by "laziness" is just an opinion. I remind you (it's written above) they have added a commercial restriction in their Terms of Use (which means they know law a little) and choose not to put their YouTube channel under a CC license, which both contradicts your claim and makes two reason why their content is incompatible with Commons. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC) PS: Regarding the "otherwise noted" it has been introduced back 6 years ago in the template and it's the first time I hear a complain about it (to be accurate several DR have lead to a deletion of the basis of this mention). Since it's not the right place to discuss if a Commons template is false you should add a word to Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: @Seav: actually, It's most probably a bit of copy paste legalese template that's used in other sites possibly by the same web developer of the PTV site, and that they probably don't understand that Ph government works are public domain-ish rather than knowing the law. Compare the text of the PTV TOS page with this one from Marina Bay Countdown. It's a virtual copy-paste job. Most Philippine government sites are haphazard in their TOS with web suppliers and developers coming from all over the place. You also keep referring to YouTube when the source is the Facebook channel and not their YouTube channel. -Object404 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Btw, I am specifically referring to this wording used in the PTV TOS page: "...its content suppliers, and may be downloaded or printed for your own personal and non-commercial use only. All copyright notices on downloaded or printed material must be retained. Save as specifically permitted here, you may not copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, repost, modify, transmit, make available to the public, adapt, create a derivative work or otherwise use or exploit any content on the Site in any way or for any purpose. In addition, you may not distribute or make available any part of the Site over any other website or any network.", including succeeding sections which can be found on multiple websites. -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Object404: Frankly this discussion is going nowhere: Commons relies only on the copyright law and only the law and is not interested what is in the Philippino webmasters minds or if the terms of use are indentical from a Philippino website to another. PS you are refering to Facebook: Facebook content is not free either. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- AFAIK the people/account owners own the content they post to Facebook. Hence if it is the Philippine government posting content on FB, it is then public domain-ish, with the caveat that permission must be asked if one is going to re-use the content for commercial use. According to Philippine law, content created by GOCCs are public domain-ish and should be good for posting on Wikimedia Commons. -Object404 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- citation: "You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want." -Facebook Terms of Service -Object404 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- citation 2, here is the appropriate Philippine Law, the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines: "Section 176. Works of the Government. - 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required for the use of any purpose of statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)" -Object404 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Funny that you should mention that it is only the law that matters because according to the actual law, works created by the government is free of copyright. This is regardless of any actual "Copyright © ..." text on government-operated websites which is based on my experience based on ignorance of the actual law. —seav (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- AFAIK the people/account owners own the content they post to Facebook. Hence if it is the Philippine government posting content on FB, it is then public domain-ish, with the caveat that permission must be asked if one is going to re-use the content for commercial use. According to Philippine law, content created by GOCCs are public domain-ish and should be good for posting on Wikimedia Commons. -Object404 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Object404: Frankly this discussion is going nowhere: Commons relies only on the copyright law and only the law and is not interested what is in the Philippino webmasters minds or if the terms of use are indentical from a Philippino website to another. PS you are refering to Facebook: Facebook content is not free either. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Btw, I am specifically referring to this wording used in the PTV TOS page: "...its content suppliers, and may be downloaded or printed for your own personal and non-commercial use only. All copyright notices on downloaded or printed material must be retained. Save as specifically permitted here, you may not copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, repost, modify, transmit, make available to the public, adapt, create a derivative work or otherwise use or exploit any content on the Site in any way or for any purpose. In addition, you may not distribute or make available any part of the Site over any other website or any network.", including succeeding sections which can be found on multiple websites. -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: @Seav: actually, It's most probably a bit of copy paste legalese template that's used in other sites possibly by the same web developer of the PTV site, and that they probably don't understand that Ph government works are public domain-ish rather than knowing the law. Compare the text of the PTV TOS page with this one from Marina Bay Countdown. It's a virtual copy-paste job. Most Philippine government sites are haphazard in their TOS with web suppliers and developers coming from all over the place. You also keep referring to YouTube when the source is the Facebook channel and not their YouTube channel. -Object404 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Seav: That PTV add a copyright footer only by "laziness" is just an opinion. I remind you (it's written above) they have added a commercial restriction in their Terms of Use (which means they know law a little) and choose not to put their YouTube channel under a CC license, which both contradicts your claim and makes two reason why their content is incompatible with Commons. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC) PS: Regarding the "otherwise noted" it has been introduced back 6 years ago in the template and it's the first time I hear a complain about it (to be accurate several DR have lead to a deletion of the basis of this mention). Since it's not the right place to discuss if a Commons template is false you should add a word to Template talk:PD-PhilippinesGov. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- The "otherwise noted" is not actually in the text of the law: [4]. This "otherwise noted" is mainly for content whose copyright is owned by third parties and has been transferred to the government, but this sourcing should be explicitly indicated. Most PH government sources and websites lazily slap a "Copyright X" note in footers and footnotes because of ignorance of the law and this is not really a valid claim. —seav (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- As per Philippine "Tambayan Philippines" talk page, I guess we have consensus to keep this file? -Object404 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: ping! -Object404 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me, @Object404: but I'm the nominator, not the closing Administrator, who is a specialist of copyright law. Please note too that a "consensus" between users of Indonesian Wikipedia is of no help here: deletion requests are not votes. Now please wait for an Administrator decision. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Indonesian? -Object404 (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me, @Object404: but I'm the nominator, not the closing Administrator, who is a specialist of copyright law. Please note too that a "consensus" between users of Indonesian Wikipedia is of no help here: deletion requests are not votes. Now please wait for an Administrator decision. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: ping! -Object404 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep as per argument of @Object404: and the resulting discussion at en:Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive44. Again quoting Seav: "As long as the content is clearly the work of PTV (e.g., no news reports showing viral citizen journalism videos), I think the video/media is kosher for Commons as a work of the government." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: For government works, copyright status is determined by the actual law, not whatever the website says. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
File:RJ Nieto during a Philippine Senate hearing on the Proliferation of Fake and or Misleading News and False Information.jpg
[edit]The caption as well as the article where it was used contains contentious material prohibited under Biography of Living Persons policy. Specifically, the photo paints the subject as a spreader of fake news which is an attack at his character. Unknown Wiki Robot (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- The caption is not contentious. It is simply the actual name of the Senate hearing from where the image was taken from and does not violate BLP policies. Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=1819069538153708&ref=watch_permalink -Object404 (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Closed as Kept per above. (Also note that neither image title nor caption problems are by themselves reason for deletion.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
File:RJ Nieto during a Philippine Senate hearing on the Proliferation of Fake and or Misleading News and False Information.jpg
[edit]There is an image of the subject Rey Joseph "RJ" Nieto on Wikimedia Commons that better fits encyclopedia standards than this one that negatively harasses the subject through its caption and his non-formal face. Unknown Wiki Robot (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy kept per above recent keeps. Again, if captions or titles are inaccurate they can be changed, which is not a deletion issue. No evidence that the photo "harasses the subject". Better quality free licensed photos of people with Wikipedia articles are always welcome, and better quality photos will generally be preferred to illustrate articles - but hypothetical "better" illustrations are not a reason to delete existing in use free licensed photos. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The original photo from which this has been cropped is licensed as CC-BY-2.0 but this file has a fake claim of authorship by User:Gardenparty and a fake claim to relicense the crop under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. If Commons is committed to abiding by license requirements, this photo crop has been hosted illegally for more than 8 years and must be deleted.. 2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 16:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: and license fixed. --Achim (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry @Achim55: but you clearly haven’t understood the reason for the DR. The license IS NOT the issue. The issue is that the copyright holder licensed the original as a CC-BY-2.0 i.e. re-users MUST attribute correctly. Please read the words of the license carefully.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit
- If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. CC licenses prior to Version 4.0 also require you to provide the title of the material if supplied, and may have other slight differences.
- More info. , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- The uploader failed to give the name of the creator and a link to the material (the Flickr page). The file must be deleted as a copyright violation. Please do not just pre-emptively dismiss a DR with a simple license change. --2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 18:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. One does not become the copyright holder of someone else's photograph simply by cropping it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The original photo from which this has been cropped is licensed as CC-BY-2.0 but this file has a fake claim of authorship by User:Gardenparty and a fake claim to relicense the crop under CC-BY-SA-3.0. If Commons is committed to abiding by license requirements, this photo crop has been hosted illegally for almost 8 years and must be deleted. 2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 16:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Based on actions elsewhere, I’d like to clarify the reason for the DR. The license added by the uploader IS NOT the issue. The issue is that the copyright holder licensed the original as a CC-BY-2.0 i.e. re-users MUST attribute correctly. Please read the words of the license carefully.
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit
- If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. CC licenses prior to Version 4.0 also require you to provide the title of the material if supplied, and may have other slight differences.
- More info. , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- The uploader failed to give the name of the creator and a link to the material (the Flickr page). The file must be deleted as a copyright violation. Please do not just pre-emptively dismiss a DR with a simple license change. --2A04:4A43:4CFF:2445:FC49:710F:35:73B8 18:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. One does not become the copyright holder of someone else's photograph simply by making a cropped version of it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright Jelican9 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted No evident in-scope usefulness, no other contributions by uploader. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
While Everton FC is free to distribute its self-created content however it wants, the screenshot comes from a Premier League broadcast that is copyrighted worldwide. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- The screenshot was taken from the Everton-FC-YouTube-Video and in it Everton FC published the video with a "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" license. --FootyBystander (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @FootyBystander: Please re-read my rationale for listing the image above. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- According to the request for deletion, one should express oneself in the discussion. I only acted based on the license information on the YouTube-video. --FootyBystander (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Per above, uploaded in good faith by uploader, but non-free derivative work included in the YouTube video. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
A fake license is specified. The content of the site, including the logo, is protected by copyright. GAndy (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Due to https://images.nasa.gov/details-KSC-20210602-PH-BOE01_0003 and the image's metadata itself, the photographer is from Boeing not from NASA. Copyright 2021 The Boeing Company and Boeing has provided NASA a limited, perpetual license to use this image on NASA websites. can you find in the file's XMP data set, so the image is unfortunately not eligible for Commons. Ras67 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Personally I think a strong argument can be made that this photo enhances the subject matter, has already been released for public distribution, and that makes it eligible for non free-content WP:NON FREE , particularly under the ""Other promotional material exception, as it is very clear that this photo is for promotional use. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timmccloud 2600:6C44:4A7F:F84C:6C35:5C6:4521:AFBB 21:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, that kind of "non free-content" is not allowed on Commons. --Ras67 (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Not free licensed by the copyright holder; cannot be hosted on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Risk of copyright violation. Crop of an image that is on the Royal Institute of British Architects website without a free license.[5] Low-resolution and noisy image, probably a scan from printed material. The claimed author is the college, not an individual photographer. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- The RIBA source linked above attributes the photograph to Hylton Warner, which is presumably Hylton, Warner & Co, a photography company based in Cardiff.[6] Verbcatcher (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC) I took the photograph and uploaded to my personal Facebook page. Rather than upload the photograph directly from my phone, I downloaded it from my personal Facebook page and uploaded to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeriMike (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a photoshopped image of Indian Women's Hockey players depecting them as being pregnant. This is offensive and hence I nominate for a quick deletion.Cdinesh (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I declined speedy deletion request, because the file is used. Anyway, do not add speedy deletion tag, here regular DR must be finished. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Photoshopped image Smarter1 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unreliable uploader. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Davidvegaq (talk · contribs)
[edit]Look like picture from Fireparts brochure, low res (all 1600x1066 px), no metadata.
- File:YAMAHA NMAX FIREPARTS.png
- File:Dominar 400 con equipaje FIREPARTS.png
- File:Bajaj Dominar 400 FIREPARTS.png
- File:YAMAHA XTZ 150 FIREPARTS.png
Cjp24 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Author in unknown - photo was taken in 1930s, so how do we know if the copyright has expired? Uploader did not indicate the source of the photo. In my opinion, these photos have been scanned from a modern publication. Uploader should provide the publication from which he scanned the photos. We are not sure that the author of the photograph died 70 years ago. Mmedstereast (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Author in unknown - photo was taken in 1930s, so how do we know if the copyright has expired? Uploader did not indicate the source of the photo. In my opinion, these photos have been scanned from a modern publication. Uploader should provide the publication from which he scanned the photos. We are not sure that the author of the photograph died 70 years ago. Mmedstereast (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Author in unknown - photo was taken in 1930s, so how do we know if the copyright has expired? Uploader did not indicate the source of the photo. In my opinion, these photos have been scanned from a modern publication. Uploader should provide the publication from which he scanned the photos. We are not sure that the author of the photograph died 70 years ago. Mmedstereast (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Author in unknown - photo was taken in 1930s, so how do we know if the copyright has expired? Uploader did not indicate the source of the photo. In my opinion, these photos have been scanned from a modern publication. Uploader should provide the publication from which he scanned the photos. We are not sure that the author of the photograph died 70 years ago. Mmedstereast (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
author in unknown - photo was taken in 1930s, so how do we know if the copyright has expired? Uploader did not indicate the source of the photo. In my opinion, these photos have been scanned from a modern publication. Uploader should provide the publication from which he scanned the photos. We are not sure that the author of the photograph died 70 years ago. Mmedstereast (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Author in unknown - photo was taken in 1930s, so how do we know if the copyright has expired? Uploader did not indicate the source of the photo. In my opinion, these photos have been scanned from a modern publication. Uploader should provide the publication from which he scanned the photos. We are not sure that the author of the photograph died 70 years ago. Mmedstereast (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
violations of copyright ⓒ Michał Jerczyński 46.76.30.119 15:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Cant't be violated because:
{{PD-Polish}} 95.41.19.83 11:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Polish Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The publication from which the photos were taken was not given by uploader. We don't certainty that photo was published before 1994. In my opinion, these photos have been scanned from a modern publication. Uploader should provide the publication from which he scanned the photos. Mmedstereast (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by JuTa. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
violations of copyright ⓒ Michał Jerczyński 46.76.30.119 15:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Cant't be violated because:
{{PD-Polish}} 95.41.19.83 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: {{tl:PD-Polish}} Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The publication from which the photos were taken was not given by uploader. We don't certainty that photo was published before 1994. In my opinion, these photos have been scanned from a modern publication. Uploader should provide the publication from which he scanned the photos. Mmedstereast (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by JuTa. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
violations of copyright ⓒ Michał Jerczyński 46.76.30.119 15:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- {{PD-Polish}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.41.19.83 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Polish Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The publication from which the photos were taken was not given by uploader. We don't certainty that photo was published before 1994. In my opinion, these photos have been scanned from a modern publication. Uploader should provide the publication from which he scanned the photos. Mmedstereast (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by JuTa. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
One of unused user-made map files from Ph_fil_pangasinan.png AichiWikiFixer (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Unused gif duplicate of raw scan, limited quality Askeuhd (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep @Askeuhd: : You can't delete a picture based on low quality. Low quality is determined when a picture is a suspect of copy. This is crystal clear that this picture is from NASA and agree to the licence. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 11:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Contributers2020: - if this is a NASA picture, where did you obtain it? The source you indicated, only has JPG and TIFF versions already uploaded. The GIF version is not present at the source. If you found this image at NASA website, please update the source accordingly. Askeuhd (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, but this picture is in Public Domain, so I used this picture with attribution. The source I indicated- has the same image. The file type doesn't matter here. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 07:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Contributers2020 the indicated source has three files available currently, a high-res JPEG version which I uploaded to Commons as File:STS002-13-291 - View of China.jpg, a low-res JPEG version which I did not upload to because it was redunant and unuseful, and lastly a TIFF-version is available on request which I uploaded to Commons as File:STS002-13-291 - View of China (Raw scan).tif. The source does not have a GIF version, which I presume you created yourself using either the high-res JPEG or the raw TIFF as source material for. While you are ofcourse completely free to create such an image yourself, the source material being Public Domain, it currently has no useful purpose on Commons; this GIF duplicate is of lower quality than either of the two already uploaded versions, and it is also unused. Now if anyone had a specific need for a GIF version of this image, it would have it's rightful place here, but right now it does not add anything that is not already present. I hope you understand that I am trying to explain this to you with the best intentions - I hope you will continue to contribute to Commons, while understanding that not all free media falls within Commons:Project scope --Askeuhd (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, but this picture is in Public Domain, so I used this picture with attribution. The source I indicated- has the same image. The file type doesn't matter here. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 07:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Contributers2020: - if this is a NASA picture, where did you obtain it? The source you indicated, only has JPG and TIFF versions already uploaded. The GIF version is not present at the source. If you found this image at NASA website, please update the source accordingly. Askeuhd (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Fictitious file and likely unusable. The original version of the file contains a watermark with the sentence "This is future Canton". This implies the uploader's fantasy rendition of Guangzhou in the future. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio Nanahuatl (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Some borders are erroneous. There is a correct map: File:2020 Polish presidential election - 2nd round results.svg and this map is used in all wikis. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
It does not have educational significance Konno Yumeto 13:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the image stands well within the parameters of any other image on Category:SVG special or fictional flags and therefore there is no justification for deletion. --Oren neu dag (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Misleading. Konno Yumeto 14:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's not the image's fault, and there is nothing in the image that implies it has any intention to be what it clearly ain't; So instead of accusing said image and its uploader, why don't you call out those that troll-edit wikipedia --Oren neu dag (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Oren neu dag: 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". GPinkerton (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's not the image's fault, and there is nothing in the image that implies it has any intention to be what it clearly ain't; So instead of accusing said image and its uploader, why don't you call out those that troll-edit wikipedia --Oren neu dag (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: out of COM:SCOPE fictitious flag; COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. GPinkerton (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not meaningfully used. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Original research. There was no modern typeface in Wei. Konno Yumeto 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not meaningfully used. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Original research. There was no modern typeface in Qi. Konno Yumeto 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not meaningfully used. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replaced with a table in Wikisource Vadimzer (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replaced with a table in Wikisource Vadimzer (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replaced with a table in Wikisource Vadimzer (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like flickr washing. The watermark says it is by "Mary" BocaChicaGal, who is not Ron Frazier as claimed in the info. Chris857 (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
If there's such a permission, it should be proven per Commons:Volunteer Response Team, otherwise it's a copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- KeepThe owner of the photo have already sent an email for this permission, but he would be more than happy to send it again if necessary. Please just let me know... --Assyrtiko (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Assyrtiko: , that's not important. The creator has to send an e-mail to the OSRT team per Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Otherwise, we just can't prove that the creator gives his/her permission.--Nanahuatl (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The creator has already sent an e-mail to them :) I was at cc list as well. --Assyrtiko (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Assyrtiko: , it has to be approved by the members of the team. I'm adding {{OTRS-pending}} to the file, let's see.--Nanahuatl (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- The creator has already sent an e-mail to them :) I was at cc list as well. --Assyrtiko (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: still no OTRS confirmation. --JuTa 07:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks to be this image from Elon Musk's Twitter account, just with some padding on the sides. Unlikely to be own work. Chris857 (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
old photograph, unlikely own work of the uplaoder, ticket permission required Krd 06:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This is an original file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedfsdef (talk • contribs) 08:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
At least the "車" beyonds COM:TOO China Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
"車" beyonds COM:TOO China. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
"車" beyonds COM:TOO China. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
"車" beyonds COM:TOO China. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
"車" beyonds COM:TOO China. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
License laundering Minoraxtalk 04:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete blacklist the flickr account too. RZuo (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. To request blacklist, please write on Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images or COM:AN. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Kirilloparma tagged for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. I disagree, so I'm making this deletion request. I don't see how this exceeds COM:TOO; it's just text with some dirty scratches on it. IagoQnsi (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I should mention, Kirilloparma linked to this past DR in their original message: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Resident Evil 8 Village Logo.svg. I'm not an admin so I don't know how similar that image is to this one. I don't think adding scratches to some text makes it copyrightable; see File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg as another text logo with lots of scratches and whatnot that was still denied copyright registration. --IagoQnsi (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Resident Evil 8 Village Logo.svg.
Info Category:Logos from Fangamer → This category recently created by IagoQnsi should also be fully reviewed as it contains many logos which can also exceed the threshold of originality (like this one, this one, this one, this one or this one for example). It is also worth noting that the country of origin of some logos in this category is not only United States, but also other countries where these logos may have a low threshold of originality than in the United States, and even a simple design may be copyrighted. IagoQnsi please note that per Commons policy, images must be free in both the United States and the country of origin (where it was first published). As for the case with this logo, I can say the following, Cyberpunk 2077 logo is free in the United States, but it's not clear if it's free in Poland (country of origin)? So I think this discussion can be definitely challenged. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: My 2c is that logos with details on letterings such as these are above COM:TOO, unless we have evidence of specific cases where it is not (as in the cyber punk logo - they are not the same, one are outdents of the lettering, and one is lines on top of the letterings). Per COM:PRP and since this has already been deleted following a previous deletion request, this will need to be deleted. In order to argue for undeletion, the place is COM:UNDEL (no objection against such nomination). Other logos will need to be discussed seperatly from this DR. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Please stop the removal of important images from Indonesian Wikipedia articles through wikilawyering. The reasoning that "some pictures might be used for commercial purposes" is pathetic. Enormous damage has already been done to the Indonesia project, and soon people will be deprived of almost all pictures of cities and structures. Davidelit (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as something more problematic than no commercial Indonesian FOP: incomplete metadata bears Facebook transmission code. Most likely previously published there, and proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for works previously published on social media 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:VRT#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the original image overwrite this FB-derived image, if the image is truly self-photographed work of the uploader. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- FOP or no, it's a useless spam image (as File:Merima murid menjahit.jpg and File:Tujuan.jpg, by the same uploader, all advertising the same Indonesian dress shop), and should be deleted as not within COMMONS:SCOPE. DS (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- @DragonflySixtyseven: whether or not it is in scope, since it is a Facebook-sourced image it must be deleted anyway. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with focusing on the provenance issues rather than the out-of-scopeness is that provenance issues can, in principle, be remedied. We could give the uploader false hope, they could go to the trouble of contacting VRT with a proper release, etc etc etc... and the image would still be spam and out of scope. DS (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- @DragonflySixtyseven: whether or not it is in scope, since it is a Facebook-sourced image it must be deleted anyway. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per DS, out of SCOPE. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (plus the other two images mentioned, even though they weren't specifically nominated). —howcheng {chat} 02:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of billboard depicting non-free artwork. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Forgot about {{PD-Afghanistan}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Afghanistan. IMO it is not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. This 2D graphic work appears to be modern. Missing COM:VRT permission from the graphic artists or production company. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
no educational or real purpose other than exhibitionism 74.75.58.83 05:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep human sexuality is within project scope; adequate quality image. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, but the photographer could have chosen a better model than someone whose face has all these cuts. —howcheng {chat} 02:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:CSD criteria: F1. Apparent copyright violation; F6. License laundering; possible case of F2. Fair use content HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Do not delete. As a Supercars employee, I am authorized to use this logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallensupercars (talk • contribs) 06:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Can you show that you are the copyright holder of the work and are agreeing to release it under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence, and not just that you are personally authorised to use the work in your personal activities? By uploading a work to commons, you are not only only making the work available for you yourself to use, but for anybody who wishes to do so. Being authorised to, for example, use the work on your own personal social media page does not automatically authorise you to release the rights to it under a Creative Commons licence. If you do possess legal ownership of the work you may be able to go through COM:VRTS. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; it's been six months since the nomination and no action has been taken to prove the uploader's identity, so we have to presume that it's no good. —howcheng {chat} 02:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright restored in the US by URAA. DrKay (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright restored in the US by URAA. DrKay (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Collings died in 1947 so his works were copyrighted in the UK until 2018 and American copyrights were restored in 1996. These images are thus copyrighted in the US until 2031. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Amended DrKay (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Strong Keep: The author died in 1947, so it is PD in UK. And per PD art: "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain. This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States". Not to mention that the individual portraits are also public domain, per this reason. BritRoyale (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Confirmed sock puppet. DrKay (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Keep: This work likely public domain in the US, per {{PD-1996}}. --49.150.110.214 11:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)- It obviously doesn't meet condition 3: it was still copyrighted in 1996. DrKay (talk)
It has named on it, see for licensing details (File:Edward_VIII_Portrait_-_1936.jpg and File:George VI Portrait - 1936.jpg). --49.150.110.214 22:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)- This IP
appears to beis evading a block from Frontman830 (talk · contribs). DrKay (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC) @DrKay: you have been a serious violation of incivility. --49.150.110.214 03:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- This IP
- Delete Let's just Ignore All Rules, even don't "assume good faith" for those IP socks, URAA-restored UK works are just URAA-restored. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This also affects other copies of the same paintings, such as File:Edward VIII Portrait - 1936.jpg and File:George VI Portrait - 1936.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added. DrKay (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: I can't see how restoring a work matters, given everything it says in Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain and Threshold of originality. Richard75 (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Richard75: Any obsolete copyrights were restored by the URAA trade agreement. en:Image restoration is an entirely different and unrelated concept. DrKay (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, it's very known that COM:TOO UK is very low. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Source says it's a PA image. Copyrighted in the US until 2035. DrKay (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Source says it's by Fox photos. Copyrighted in the US until 2045. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Proposed merging with {{Dont recreate}} as both are urging users not to re-create contents that are previously deleted A1Cafel (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Redirected to {{Dont recreate}}. —howcheng {chat} 02:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
advertising only — billinghurst sDrewth 08:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Belarus A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- The aforementioned rule is not applicable in this case of social advertisement, as public messaging by any government agency is not covered by the copyright in Belarus. The same is true for folklore symbolism, represented in the photo, according to the Article 8 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus #194 on copyright (Template:PD-BY-exempt).--W (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per W, national symbol, added the tag. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 02:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted model of One World Trade Center, no FoP in US for 3D artworks A1Cafel (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's just my paper model with a description, which facilitates orientation in the regarding the parameters of the building. I find the picture useful. I have no idea, how could I infringe copyright. If yes, so accept my apology. Tobartos (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: as uploader claims the photograph is of their own model, there is no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 02:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There is no commercial FOP in Azerbaijan. Also, the graphic work - billboard - is the intended subject. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Personality rights vio? 62.216.207.126 10:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Personality rights only affect what people can do with the image (for example, this cannot be used for advertising without the subject's consent). —howcheng {chat} 02:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The better version by myself is File:Taipei Station bus stop board of Royal Bus 20100608.jpg. Solomon203 (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
No FOP in Indonesia, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Garuda Wisnu Kencana monument.jpg. Achim (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Please stop the removal of important images from Indonesian Wikipedia articles through wikilawyering. The reasoning that "some pictures might be used for commercial purposes" is pathetic. Enormous damage has already been done to the Indonesia project, and soon people will be deprived of almost all pictures of cities and structures. Davidelit (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. The image lacks COM:VRT correspondence from artists Nyoman Nuarta for allowance of uploader's use of commercial licensing. To address @Davidelit: 's accusations, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Menara Bank Permata - panoramio.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The statue is not old enough to be in PD and it is protected by copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Invalid OTRS ticket. Permission is from subject, not author(s), and no evidence of copyright transfer or permission was provided. Copyright transfers only through written conveyance--mere say-so is not adequate.
- File:Дэя на digital-шоу «МузКач» телеканала Music Box Russia.jpg
- File:Дэя на фестивале «ЖАРА 2021».jpg
- File:Дэя на pre-party премии «ЖАРА Music Awards».jpg
- File:Дэя (Диана Мирошникова).jpg
- File:Дэя на новогоднем музыкальном шоу «Жара в Вегасе».jpg
Эlcobbola talk 11:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is proper source. https://dea-singer.ru/dea-photo/ --Imdutch (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- VRT agent (verify): Keep per valid VRT ticket. @Elcobbola: Open a case on VRT wiki if you disagree with the assessment made by another VRT agent, since you can't disclose content in emails here in public. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is nonsense; there's even a boilerplate response template built into the system rejecting permission sent from subjects with no evidence of a transfer. VRT has no authority to delete content on local projects, so DRs here are the proper venue, and are routinely used. No personal information needs to be discussed to assess the issue. Эlcobbola talk 02:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- The community relies on VRT to process permission tickets. If VRT agents can't agree on a ticket, that should be discussed amongst VRT agents. The community here can't really know or trust the content of the emails, nor are they privy to them. Either there is an accepted permissions tag applied on the file description page from VRT or not. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is nonsense; there's even a boilerplate response template built into the system rejecting permission sent from subjects with no evidence of a transfer. VRT has no authority to delete content on local projects, so DRs here are the proper venue, and are routinely used. No personal information needs to be discussed to assess the issue. Эlcobbola talk 02:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Ticket:2021072610006607, in English. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: If there's any issue with the assessment made by some VRT agent is past, the legit place to question this is the VRT Wiki. Email content etc. can't be made public here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: If a VRT agent says they're good, then that's what we have to go by. If the VRT agent misinterpreted the ticket, that's beyond the scope of this venue. —howcheng {chat} 02:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
No evidence that it's under CC-BY-SA Danu Widjajanto (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 02:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Original research. Konno Yumeto 13:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. --沈澄心✉ 08:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Files which are COM:INUSE, by definition, cannot be out of scope. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Original research. There was no Ming in Han. Konno Yumeto 13:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- What do you say, User:Ac_12romero22 and User:B-bot? How will you replace this file? 95.103.28.249 15:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Rename or Delete if no longer used on userpages. --沈澄心✉ 08:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2624586206).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-borneol_&_(-)-borneol.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_(14519899583).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![170 File:U.S. Navy Culinary Specialist 3rd Class Elizabeth Zannone reviews a recipe "Iron Chef" competition aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) in the Atlantic Ocean May 17, 2013 130517-N-XE109-142.jpg](#File:U.S._Navy_Culinary_Specialist_3rd_Class_Elizabeth_Zannone_reviews_a_recipe_"Iron_Chef"_competition_aboard_the_aircraft_carrier_USS_George_H.W._Bush_(CVN_77)_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean_May_17,_2013_130517-N-XE109-142.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2624586206).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2624586206).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2624586206).jpg){kind=link}
_(2624586206).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-borneol_%26_(-)-borneol.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-borneol_%26_(-)-borneol.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Borneol.svg){kind=link}
-borneol_&_(-)-borneol.svg){kind=link}
-borneol_&_(-)-borneol.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(3).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_(14519899583).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(14519899583).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(14519899583).jpg){kind=link}
_(14519899583).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean_May_17,_2013_130517-N-XE109-142.jpg){kind=link}
_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean_May_17,_2013_130517-N-XE109-142.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Files which are COM:INUSE, by definition, cannot be out of scope. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Original research. Konno Yumeto 13:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. --沈澄心✉ 08:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Files which are COM:INUSE, by definition, cannot be out of scope. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Original research. Konno Yumeto 13:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this file, This project is not meant to save these pictures in.--Q28 (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. --沈澄心✉ 08:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Files which are COM:INUSE, by definition, cannot be out of scope. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Original research. There was no modern typeface in Zhou. Konno Yumeto 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- per nom, delete it.--Q28 (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. --沈澄心✉ 08:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Files which are COM:INUSE, by definition, cannot be out of scope. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Original research. Konno Yumeto 13:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep per COM:NPOV: Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements. If you believe the filename is not appropriate, consider Commons:File renaming. --Wcam (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is out of COM:SCOPE. Konno Yumeto 08:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: out of scope. --沈澄心✉ 08:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Files which are COM:INUSE, by definition, cannot be out of scope. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Original research. Konno Yumeto 14:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Files which are COM:INUSE, by definition, cannot be out of scope. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no relyable source indicating that this flag is the flag of Ming dynasty. (I am just helping zh:User:爱学习的饭桶 to nominate it for deletion, go to his talk page for more information) DS-fax 13:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- AnonMoos left a message on my talk page saying that commons usually keep special or fictional flags. However, it's not even a "fictional flag", because the source of the description of the flag is "hi.baidu.com", which is a blog, and there seems to be nowhere to use this "fictional flag". --DS-fax 07:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Wikimedia Commons has many "special or fictional flags", and we don't usually delete them just for being special or fictional (though they can be deleted for being maliciously hoaxing or hatemongering). If File:Flag of the Fatimid Empire.svg survived a deletion request, then this one should do so also, unless there's some additional level of bogosity beyond what you've already mentioned. However, feel free to add Template:Fictitious flag... AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Any discussions at zh:User_talk:爱学习的饭桶 don't seem to be in English... AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep--玖巧仔 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- 饭桶尊重Commons的规定，但是如果File:日月旗.svg必须保留，请一定要在描述上使用中英文表明这面旗帜未见于正规的史学刊物，属于臆造的旗帜。以免以讹传讹，贻笑大方。此外，由于这幅“日月旗”是近几年才出现的，饭桶也怀疑这面旗帜的版权状态。--爱学习的饭桶 (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Translation:" I respect the consensus of Commons, but if the image File:日月旗.svg must be kept, it should be noted that the flag is made up and that it's not seen in formal historiography journals, in case wrong information would spread out. Furthermore, the flag appeared only a few years ago, so I have doubts about the copyright status of the image." --DS-fax 14:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete each country domain of wikipedia is treated on its own wiki domain. There is no reason to help china boy when he has wikipedia.zh domain. Why should wikipedia.commons store a chinese file ?Special+Utilizator+$ (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that doesn't make too much sense -- many Chinese flag images on Commons are used on many different Wikipedias in articles discussing China and Chinese history. 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Original research, misleading, and without educational significance. Konno Yumeto 14:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- First off Commons does not actually have any policy against original research. Second, people are entitled to use it on their personal userpages if they want. AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The objection above is not grounded in (and wholly ignores) poliy: COM:SCOPE, 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". GPinkerton (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Files which are COM:INUSE, by definition, cannot be out of scope. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Original research. Simply adaptation of File:Kokbayraq flag.svg and misleading. Konno Yumeto 14:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This PNG file is the original on which (a previous version of) the SVG is based. If the file name is misleading, it should be renamed, not deleted. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Bogus nomination with multiple provably false claims. Original uploader Tarkan~commonswiki uploaded the PNG on December 2, 2007. Jed uploaded an SVG on December 30, 2007. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete.There is no evidence to prove that this is the flag of Uyghur people in Xinjiang. It represents a political proposition, not Uyghur. --Eguersi (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Unsure which shade of blue is a derivative of which shade of blue, but either way a crescent+star+background is not near the Commons:Threshold of originality. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by HapHaxion as no permission (No permission since) Regasterios (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
See license tag. --Regasterios (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 02:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused text table, should be in wiki-table format if needed, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
ETA related files:
Derivative work without indication of permission from the original work’s creator. Also appears to lack permission from the photographer. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader claimed own work, so why should we think they are not the photographer? And the photo could be interpreted as a photo of the exhibition, not of the individual works, in which case de minimis for the works and COM:TOO for the exhibition setup should be discussed. Does Innisfree987 have something to say about those three points? Otherwise I think the DR is premature. –LPfi (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep If the uploader had said it is their own work, then aren't they the photographer? SHB2000 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SHB2000 and LPfi: It would surprise me if a piece that takes up two-thirds of the frame passes muster as de minimis although wanting other opinions on that one of the reasons I proposed the review. Concerning the author, this photo, as well as File:Innenansicht Kunsthaus Baselland.jpg by the same uploader, Celtics 13, lists Serge Hasenböhler as the author while File:Besuchersituation.jpg, also uploaded as own work from Celtics 13, lists Ismael Lorenzo as the author. At least one must be incorrect although of course the ideal would be to hear from Celtic 13. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Celtic 13 looks like a throwaway account so wouldn't have too much hope. SHB2000 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately true. Meanwhile I will add the other files so all can be decided together. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'd very much appreciate if you made those arguments already when you nominate a file. For the de minimis argument, I think significant elements being seen through that work by a, I think, creative choice of angle, makes it dominate much less than its size would suggest. –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately true. Meanwhile I will add the other files so all can be decided together. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Celtic 13 looks like a throwaway account so wouldn't have too much hope. SHB2000 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @SHB2000 and LPfi: It would surprise me if a piece that takes up two-thirds of the frame passes muster as de minimis although wanting other opinions on that one of the reasons I proposed the review. Concerning the author, this photo, as well as File:Innenansicht Kunsthaus Baselland.jpg by the same uploader, Celtics 13, lists Serge Hasenböhler as the author while File:Besuchersituation.jpg, also uploaded as own work from Celtics 13, lists Ismael Lorenzo as the author. At least one must be incorrect although of course the ideal would be to hear from Celtic 13. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: The uploader has claimed "own work" on photos which name two different photographers, and as they have failed to clarify the situation we must delete all per COM:PRP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Issue Reiro (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. What is the copyright issue? The source video seems to be designated at the source with an acceptable creative commons licence. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Koreans have no FoP but original graffiti of Melbourne has no copyright issues. Neoscoper (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. As the murals appear recent, the images cannot be kept, although they are stills of a youtube film which is freely licenced. --Ellywa (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Issue Reiro (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. What is the copyright issue? The source video seems to be designated at the source with an acceptable creative commons licence. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Koreans have no FoP but original graffiti of Melbourne has no copyright issues. Neoscoper (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. As the murals appear recent, the images cannot be kept, although they are stills of a youtube film which is freely licenced. --Ellywa (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Issue Reiro (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. What is the copyright issue? The source video seems to be designated at the source with an acceptable creative commons licence. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Koreans have no FoP but original graffiti of Melbourne has no copyright issues. Neoscoper (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. As the murals appear recent, the images cannot be kept, although they are stills of a youtube film which is freely licenced. --Ellywa (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Issue Reiro (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. What is the copyright issue? The source video seems to be designated at the source with an acceptable creative commons licence. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Koreans have no FoP but original graffiti of Melbourne has no copyright issues. Neoscoper (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. As the murals appear recent, the images cannot be kept, although they are stills of a youtube film which is freely licenced. --Ellywa (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Issue Reiro (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. What is the copyright issue? The source video seems to be designated at the source with an acceptable creative commons licence. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Koreans have no FoP but original graffiti of Melbourne has no copyright issues. Neoscoper (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. As the murals appear recent, the images cannot be kept, although they are stills of a youtube film which is freely licenced. --Ellywa (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Issue Reiro (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. What is the copyright issue? The source video seems to be designated at the source with an acceptable creative commons licence. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Koreans have no FoP but original graffiti of Melbourne has no copyright issues. Neoscoper (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. As the murals appear recent, the images cannot be kept, although they are stills of a youtube film which is freely licenced. --Ellywa (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Issue Reiro (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. What is the copyright issue? The source video seems to be designated at the source with an acceptable creative commons licence. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Koreans have no FoP but original graffiti of Melbourne has no copyright issues. Neoscoper (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. As the murals appear recent, the images cannot be kept, although they are stills of a youtube film which is freely licenced. --Ellywa (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Issue Reiro (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Koreans have no FoP but original graffiti of Melbourne has no copyright issues. Neoscoper (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. As the murals appear recent, the images cannot be kept, although they are stills of a youtube film which is freely licenced. --Ellywa (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Issue Reiro (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. What is the copyright issue? The source video seems to be designated at the source with an acceptable creative commons licence. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Koreans have no FoP but original graffiti of Melbourne has no copyright issues. Neoscoper (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. As the murals appear recent, the images cannot be kept, although they are stills of a youtube film which is freely licenced. --Ellywa (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Part of image with football player is not considered de minimis. Cropping is not useful. --Ellywa (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Web site this was taken from is not specified; no year is given to verify public domain status. Beland (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Done I add the accurate date and source, this photo is part of many photos taken in 1880 (like this photo) --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 04:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. There was insufficient proof this image is from 1880. The source given does not give a date. --Ellywa (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleting please 191.116.35.235 00:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted orphan redirect to deleted file. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
violations of copyright ⓒ Michał Jerczyński 46.76.30.119 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC
- Cant't be violated because:
{{PD-Polish}} 95.41.19.83 10:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC))
Kept: PD-Polish. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The photo probably has been published first in 2006 on this gallery website [7]. In my opinion this was illegally copied from this website. The author's signature is seen in this photo on website. {{PD-Polish}} probably does not authorize you to copy all photos taken before 1994 from gallery websites? Mmedstereast (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There are diffs on this file being used as evidence in Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mmedstereast, so please do not close this DR while the RFCU is in progress. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep On balance. The phrasing from the complainant on noticeboards appears speculative and is not by a copyright holder. The claims of copyright infringement, as far as I read these complaints, is that the first publication (i.e. including public display) is thought to be decades after being taken by being uploaded to phototrans.eu. This appears weak evidence for a deletion. The photograph has some text added to it at the source, but this is highly likely to have been added digitally long after the original photo was taken and at some recent point digitized. Digitization was in 2006, upload to Commons was in 2014. In this context, a complaint from the asserted copyright holder might result in a courtesy deletion but there's no evidence that the photographer ever intended to use restricted copyright, it has never apparently been published with a copyright mark and without more evidence this is public domain in Poland and under the URAA. Though the burden of evidence is not on the complainant, there's little evidence here to examine and there should be consideration that it has been hosted here for 7 years.
- I find the website footer archived in 2016 the same as current, "Copyright phototrans.eu 2002-2013; Translation made by phototrans.eu. Do not use photos from this site without authors permission!" However this is not clearly a statement of copyright for the photographs but a statement for the webpage with a "system" condition constraining photo use rather than a copyright condition. In the site terms there are no rules set out for the copyright of uploads, so in terms of a photographer's rights, these are not contrained by copyright terms for the website pages. --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- If it appears to be uploaded to that site by the original author, it could simply be a personal photo which was uploaded (and therefore never published) until then -- i.e. an author going through some old personal photos to contribute to a community there. If that was indeed the first publication, it would then invalidate PD-Polish (and also be copyrighted in the U.S.). That situation seems reasonably likely, to me, unless there is evidence or indication the photo was previously published. We are relying on a publication-without-notice status, and not sure any evidence to that effect is shown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, that's a scenario. However, there is no assertion from the copyright holder and at AN additional claims are made indicating a personal dialogue with the original uploader to phototrans.eu. This makes it a matter to be addressed via correspondence with that evidence to VTRS than a public DR or deletion as a courtesy, that we would extend if there were assertions by the copyright holder. --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- If there is a VTRS conversation going on, that should deal with this then, either way. However, evidence for the given tag really was not supplied. We typically require more evidence than this to use PD-US-no_notice, which this effectively is doing. The photo was certainly taken before 1989, but no evidence of publication, which in this case (to me) seems like a significant doubt, so I can understand the DR. Not sure they qualify for speedy, though. But if discussions are taking place at VTRS, those should be able to decide. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, that's a scenario. However, there is no assertion from the copyright holder and at AN additional claims are made indicating a personal dialogue with the original uploader to phototrans.eu. This makes it a matter to be addressed via correspondence with that evidence to VTRS than a public DR or deletion as a courtesy, that we would extend if there were assertions by the copyright holder. --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- If it appears to be uploaded to that site by the original author, it could simply be a personal photo which was uploaded (and therefore never published) until then -- i.e. an author going through some old personal photos to contribute to a community there. If that was indeed the first publication, it would then invalidate PD-Polish (and also be copyrighted in the U.S.). That situation seems reasonably likely, to me, unless there is evidence or indication the photo was previously published. We are relying on a publication-without-notice status, and not sure any evidence to that effect is shown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per Carl Lindberg's concerns. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I discovered that copyrights of this photo belong to Tadeusz Suchorolski. It is a private photograph taken by him and published on some rail photography website. On the website is provided this photo with signature of author [8]. Signature was remowed by uploader, who concealed, who is real author. --Tyallendeen (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- That is the exact source given in the image, and the Author credit matches that of the source image -- they cropped the image, but moved the credit to the page text. The uploader wasn't hiding anything. The question is if the PD-Polish tag applies or not, which would have required the photo to be published elsewhere many years earlier than that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- There is a strong suspicion of sockpupettry here: Category:Sockpuppets of Mmedstereast. See the file history. Yann (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. The uploader, Cordylus, did not explain the copyright situation and did not show they are the same person as the photographer on the source website. Per COM:EVID the image has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/"134693505@N04"
[edit]This Flickr user is reposting another Flickr user's photographs and COM:FLICKRWASHing them. These images should be deleted and the account should be blacklisted. To give some background, Keith Allison used to provide a ton of quality images with a free license. In the last few years, he has taken most of his images down and now his photographs are copyrighted. It looks like this Flickr user has decided to repost them under their account.
- File:Kobe Bryant - 19510120169.jpg
- File:Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce.jpg
- File:Kobe Bryant, Andrew Bynum-2.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. EXIF data are showing another name then the Flickr user name. So that person is probably not the author. --Ellywa (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not an own work. Logo probably needs to converted to a non-free image, possibly on Wikipedia. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. This might be above threshold per COM:TOO India, because it is showing imho creativity of the design. Considering TOO is always a bit subective alas. --Ellywa (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}