Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/08/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
The diamond point Diaochanoi60s (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't like it Leishinim Vashim (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't want to keep it anymore Leishinim Vashim (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
lazimsiz Kerim Rehmanov (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
lazimsiz Kerim Rehmanov (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Not_protected "shields, flags or emblems of the Mexican government, or any other organization officially recognized. is in the public domain. So TOO is not relevant to logos of Mexicans companies. As all logos of Mexican companies are public domain. @Racconish: really should have found that out before nominating the file for deletion and I'd appreciate if they withdrew the nomination since it's clearly meritless. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination — Racconish 💬 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — Racconish 💬 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
was testing diffrent photo choices Jermonelipton (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
A photo was put of me as a joke without my knowledge. 176.143.39.31 11:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 11:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Changed my mind. I don´t feel safe anymore. Lambrusquiño (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Clear copyright violation. Taken from the actor's official Instagram account, with the post dated August 4, 2018. Keivan.fTalk 18:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I uploaded this, but I now realize that doing so was a mistake. AnnoYMWD (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
© Copyright 2010-2021 https://www.google.com/search?q=mococa+vista+a%C3%A9rrea+noturna&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwii-t-AtcPyAhX_hZUCHQwyB5IQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=mococa+vista+a%C3%A9rrea+noturna&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAgQHjoECAAQGFDtQ1iua2C9bGgAcAB4AIABtQGIAYQUkgEEMC4yMZgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=xJ8hYaKIDv-L1sQPjOSckAk&bih=625&biw=1360&rlz=1C1GCEA_enBR853BR853#imgrc=SczXVk0-OmPoxM e http://mococa.sp.gov.br/album/albuns.php Lentoster (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Arquivo com fontes e seus respectivos autores. Peço para mante-lo, por gentileza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilherme Ferracioli (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- © Copyright 2010-2021 It is not a free license and Commons does not condone violations. Lentoster (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted CV -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (EMAIS URBANISMO | TODOS OS DIREITOS RESERVADOS) https://www.google.com/search?q=Mococa+Fonte+luminosa&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiMwLeUxMPyAhWoupUCHfrAC9sQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Mococa+Fonte+luminosa&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgARQ4vUKWKD5CmCT_ApoAHAAeACAAXeIAegBkgEDMC4ymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=qK8hYYzMAqj11sQP-oGv2A0&bih=625&biw=1360&rlz=1C1GCEA_enBR853BR853#imgrc=Z_E2bpzULQ7hRM&imgdii=8iy4losdtWh1zM Lentoster (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Collage of unsourced photos, at least one identified as not free licensed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation Vaishakh1234 (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, false claims CV -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement. Till (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom (Unused, uncat since 2019) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement. Till (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement. Till (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement. Till (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement. Till (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement. Till (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Taken from any of these. Unlikely to be the work of the uploader. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Logo that should have threshold of originality uploaded without sufficient information on the license. It comes from here: https://www.spdqueer-hamburg.de/home/ Christian Bolz (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Clearly too complex to be below TOO; fraudulent license claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Diese Datei ist falsch benannt. Sie passt nicht in das System der anderen BS-Symbole gemäss Category:BSicon/railway. Lantus (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- fix. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted Prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Diese Datei ist falsch benannt. Sie passt nicht in das System der anderen BS-Symbole gemäss Category:BSicon/railway. Zudem Doublette. Lantus (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- fix. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Doublette von 
. Sie passt nicht in das System der anderen BS-Symbole gemäss Category:BSicon/railway. Lantus (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- fix. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted prompt uploader request -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted photo. We need also the label's permission, to publish this photo under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted DW by Flickr photographer. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tarek.Al.Mahmud.0 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not your personal free web host. See also Special:DeletedContributions/Tarek.Al.Mahmud.0.
- File:Tarek al mahmud jpg.jpg
- File:Tareq al mahmud.jpg
- File:Tareq.al.mahmud.png
- File:Tarek Al Mahmud.pn.jpg
- File:Tarek Al Mahmud (4).jpg
- File:Tarek Al Mahmud (5).jpg
- File:Tarek Al Mahmud (26).jpg
Achim (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10) + all previously here (uploader purports to be subject; permission from actual author(s) would be needed if OOS issue did not render moot). --Эlcobbola talk 18:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Timtrent (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Its a copyright violation. Source (https://i0.wp.com/www.youthpagelive.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Khushi-Mukherjee-12-1.jpg) The date in the image URL makes it clear to be older than the upload date. Run n Fly (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Arnold Schwartzman has asked me to get this file deleted as he is not happy with his Wikipedia page and so does not want his image to be on WikimediaCommons Arbil44 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Double request by mistake.
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, and in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cordless Larry as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Uploader has informed me that she has realised that she didn't take this photo, which she found in her personal archive, but that it is actually from the Gibraltar Chronicle of 26 August 2008. I have seen a copy of the newspaper to verify this.
Converted to regular DR, as former DR with different rationale had been rejected. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please delete this photograph as soon as possible. I uploaded it in the genuine belief that I had taken this myself, but I have now found a newspaper article which proves that I did not take this photograph. A copyright violation has therefore arisen, so please delete immediately. I apologise for this mistake, but it was a genuine mistake. Thank you. Arbil44 (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand how this wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion, Túrelio. It's a clear copyvio. I should clarify that the image as it appears in the newspaper is black and white (at least in the PDF I've seen) but it's clearly the same photo, credited in the newspaper to Johnny Bugeja. Perhaps the photographer or the newspaper provided Arbil44 with a copy of the original photo, which is why it's in colour and how the mistake occurred. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since there's been no response from Túrelio, I've reinstated the copyvio speedy deletion template. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PCP. --Ezarateesteban 23:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
As the flat poster is unquestionably the main objective of the image per the filename this surely is a copyvio is it not? Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No freedom of panorama for 2d works per COM:FOP Ireland. -M.nelson (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: obviously not de minimis and no FoP for 2D works. Ww2censor (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: (as nom). Newever version is non-copyvio but problems remain with older versions which are likely good faith copyvio.
- Djm-leighpark: What "Newever version" are you referring to? Ww2censor (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: (Another typo ... I've been sniffing the paint or something. meant "Newer") I've loaded 3 newer versions since today UTC. As I found out with an image at Limerick Junction this doesn't always show through at times due to caches. Those up to date versions resolve copyvio but still link back to the 2004. You should versions at File:Luaswelcom.jpg but if you can't (I think I cleared my Cache for Limerick Junction and ended up stuffing passwords for a week). Nowadays I'd tend to recommend using a different machine or browers to check stuff. But should be visible from the link I've just given which is the same at the top here. May a quick refresh might clear it. Thank. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Djm-leighpark: I did assume it was a typo! Slowing down a bit and proofreading before saving works wonders. Initially I did not understand what you were suggesting as it rquire revisiting the file page to see what you did. You should NOT overwrite the file of this deletion nomination with a different file. Just upload the new version under a different name and let this deletion come to its final conclusion. In that regard, I suggest you get an admin to excise the 3 new uploads and upload under a new name as suggested. Then each file stands on its own merit. Ww2censor (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @@Ww2censor Phew. Have uploaded File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg which is a trivial crop of the current latest of File:Luaswelcom.jpg as couldn't get two precisely same files up. I've {{Speedy}}ied to for an admin to review what to do and have given a G7 option to the admin on File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg which is a trivial crop of the current latest of File:Luaswelcom.jpg which is also g7 eligible on a do one or other but not both basis. Hope that works. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Djm-leighpark: I did assume it was a typo! Slowing down a bit and proofreading before saving works wonders. Initially I did not understand what you were suggesting as it rquire revisiting the file page to see what you did. You should NOT overwrite the file of this deletion nomination with a different file. Just upload the new version under a different name and let this deletion come to its final conclusion. In that regard, I suggest you get an admin to excise the 3 new uploads and upload under a new name as suggested. Then each file stands on its own merit. Ww2censor (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: (Another typo ... I've been sniffing the paint or something. meant "Newer") I've loaded 3 newer versions since today UTC. As I found out with an image at Limerick Junction this doesn't always show through at times due to caches. Those up to date versions resolve copyvio but still link back to the 2004. You should versions at File:Luaswelcom.jpg but if you can't (I think I cleared my Cache for Limerick Junction and ended up stuffing passwords for a week). Nowadays I'd tend to recommend using a different machine or browers to check stuff. But should be visible from the link I've just given which is the same at the top here. May a quick refresh might clear it. Thank. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Djm-leighpark: What "Newever version" are you referring to? Ww2censor (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, both. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Racconish at 18:09, 30 August 2021 UTC: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source (F5) --Krdbot 02:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Derivative of copyright artwork & text MPF (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
question: Uploader here. Would this image https://boardgamegeek.com/image/4664798/wingspan be less problematic? Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Derivative of copyright artwork & text MPF (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
comment Uploader here. I would like to see if I can defend this one. The writing on the cards is barely legible. The writing to the left consists of simple phrases such as "draw cards" and "lay eggs". I doubt those are copyrightable. Most of the pictures of birds are covered up by playing pieces such as food tokens and eggs. The whole thing is at an angle.Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I do not consider the images of the game De minimis, see COM:DM. --Elly (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
blurred penis selfie Pibwl (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 20:23, 4 September 2021 UTC: COM:PENIS --Krdbot 02:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Doublette von 
. Sie passt nicht in das System der anderen BS-Symbole gemäss Category:BSicon/railway. Lantus (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 03:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Doublette von 
. Sie passt nicht in das System der anderen BS-Symbole gemäss Category:BSicon/railway. Lantus (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 03:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Doublette von 
. Sie passt nicht in das System der anderen BS-Symbole gemäss Category:BSicon/railway. Lantus (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 02:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Doublette von 
. Sie passt nicht in das System der anderen BS-Symbole gemäss Category:BSicon/railway. Lantus (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 03:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Umloucobr1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused files about someone's personal non-notable fictional world.
- File:ENB Logo.png
- File:Osfoof Reign Map.jpg
- File:Bhkugler logo.png
- File:Osfoof Flag1.png
- File:Osfoof Flag.png
HyperGaruda (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Poor quality, not in scope Ooligan (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sijoittaja007 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Evidence of permission is required for photos from another website.
- File:Luukkanen Arto.jpg
- File:Hakkarainen Teuvo.jpg
- File:Mari Rantanen.jpg
- File:Immonen Olli.jpg
- File:Lulu Ranne.jpg
- File:Jani Mäkelä.jpg
- File:Meri Leena.jpg
- File:Eerola Juho.jpg
- File:Juvonen Arja.jpg
- File:Mauri Peltokangas.jpg
- File:Veikko Vallin.jpg
- File:Ritva Elomaa.jpg
- File:Riikka Purra.jpg
- File:Purra Riikka.jpg
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sijoittaja007: Please have the copyright holder follow the instructions at COM:VRT to confirm that they agree to license their work under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
File:최고의 잼민상.jpg 파일과 같거나, 비슷한 파일.[This File same(or similar) File:최고의 잼민상.jpg] ※File:최고의 잼민상.jpg Delete reason: Content intended as a threat or attack (G3) -- 메이 (토론) 08:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
G2. Unnecessary redirection Macucal (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirection Macucal (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Doublette von 
. Sie passt nicht in das System der anderen BS-Symbole gemäss Category:BSicon/railway. Lantus (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Personal image without educational use Drakosh (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Doublette von 
. Sie passt nicht in das System der anderen BS-Symbole gemäss Category:BSicon/railway. Lantus (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Out of the project scope (COM:SELFIE) —MdsShakil (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Not used. Questionable relevance. Out of project scope. Schlurcher (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Not in use, Not realistically useful for educational purposes. Commons isn't web host for personal photo. Outside of Commons' project scope. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
OOS (Out Of Scope) The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Below COM:TOO, but unclear COM:SCOPE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: This is the logo of 2×2 (TV channel), a former Russian television channel. It is thereby within COM:SCOPE. I've fixed the license, categories, description etc. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)}}
This file was initially tagged by JGHowes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Likely not own work, due to small size, lack of exif metadata, and uploader's copyvio history King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This user has uploaded a significant number of copyvios. Hence we have to delete this as well per COM:PCP. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JGHowes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Likely not own work, due to small size, lack of exif metadata, and uploader's copyvio history King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This user has uploaded a significant number of copyvios. Hence we have to delete this as well per COM:PCP. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JGHowes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Likely not own work, due to small size, lack of exif metadata, and uploader's copyvio history King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This user has uploaded a significant number of copyvios. Hence we have to delete this as well per COM:PCP. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JGHowes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Likely not own work, due to relatively small size, lack of full exif metadata, and uploader's copyvio history of cropping images found on the web King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This user has uploaded a significant number of copyvios. Hence we have to delete this as well per COM:PCP. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JGHowes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Likely not own work, due to lack of exif metadata and uploader's copyvio history of cropping images found on the web King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This user has uploaded a significant number of copyvios. Hence we have to delete this as well per COM:PCP. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JGHowes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Likely not own work, due to lack of exif metadata and uploader's copyvio history of cropping images found on the web King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This user has uploaded a significant number of copyvios. Hence we have to delete this as well per COM:PCP. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JGHowes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Likely not own work, due to relatively small size, lack of full exif metadata, and uploader's copyvio history of cropping images found on the web King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This user has uploaded a significant number of copyvios. Hence we have to delete this as well per COM:PCP. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Despite the license review from Ruthven and the software being free and open-source, this logo/illustration has not been placed under a Commons-approved free license, and the terms according to the Art section of the OpenBSD website (https://www.openbsd.org/art4.html) are not compatible with Commons-approved licensing. It states the following: "Most images provided here are copyright[ed] by OpenBSD, by Theo de Raadt, or by other members or developers of the OpenBSD group. However, it is our intent that anyone be able to use these images to represent OpenBSD in a positive light. So enjoy them and let the world see them, if that is your wish."
For more information, see the terms set out on the Fair Use upload of the OpenBSD logo (which includes this illustration) on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OpenBSD_Logo_-_Cartoon_Puffy_with_textual_logo_below.svg StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
delete not only this file, also following files have the same problem:
- File:S2k17.gif
- File:Openbsd23cover.gif
- File:OpenBSD Journal Logo.jpg
- File:OpenBSD mit Standard Fenstermanager cwm und xeyes.png
- File:Openbsd37withjwm.png
- File:VirtualBox OBSD 27 10 2019 12 30 05.png
FMM-1992 (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep I don't see where this phrasing is not compatible with Commons-approved licensing. Even the CC BY SA 4.0 excludes rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights, which may limit how the material is used. This is similar. --Ruthven (msg) 19:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I should've said this earlier: the logo is not BSD licensed. Nowhere on the Art section of the OpenBSD site does it say that.
- Anyway, the terms that are presented are worded in such a way that's there's reason in my opinion to be skeptical about whether or not that this is OK for Commons. The terms say that the reuser is restricted from using the logo if it's not used in a "positive light." With CC-BY and BY-SA licensed content, (as long as the reuser attributes and/or shares the work under the same license, and the rest of the terms detailed here are followed), you are free to use that work in almost any way. The terms set out by OpenBSD aren't comparable, because for instance: someone might want to make an anti-OpenBSD website, blog or whatever, they find the logo at Commons, and then use the logo on their site with a red X over Puffy. If it were CC-BY-SA licensed (and of course abided by the terms of the license), it would be more than OK. But, they couldn't do so, because according to the terms by the folks at OpenBSD, this could be considered as something not positive, and therefore a violation of the terms. I know this may sound weird or extreme, but we have to think about hypothetical situations like this. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I should've said this earlier: the logo is not BSD licensed. Nowhere on the Art section of the OpenBSD site does it say that.
Deleted: No proof has been provided that this OpenBSD logo has been made available under a {{BSD}} license as claimed by the license review. The terms at https://www.openbsd.org/art4.html are not compatible to COM:L as this does not include a grant to create derivative works and as the terms include the restriction to put OpenBSD in a positive light. FMM-1992 lists more files with similar problems but failed to tag these files and to notify all involved. Hence, I will not delete them within the course of this deletion request. This warrants a separate deletion request which may refer to this one. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Prev nom crashed Needs a proper source/license to keep - current source is a doc from google Gbawden (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Gbawden: I has been edit for licence and source, and i will edited for all pict for proof-reading Kami Perkenalkan (1954) on wikisource Pungkas nurrohman (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:BESAR MARTOKOESOEMO.jpg
- File:HARJOTO, R.M.jpg
- File:SUMARNO.jpg
- File:SOETOTO.jpg
- File:GUNUNG ISKANDAR.jpg
- File:Mr.Iman SUDJAHRI.jpg
- File:Ir.Martinus PUTUHENA.jpg
- File:Mr.Iman SOEPOMO.jpg
- File:Moh. R. KAFRAWI.jpg
- File:M.HUTASOIT.jpg
- File:Dr.M.SOERONO.jpg
- File:Mr.SUMARDI.jpg
- File:Prof. Mr. Dr. Raden SOEPOMO.jpg
- File:Prof. Dr.M. SARDJITO.jpg
- File:Laksamana Muda Udara, Raden Suryadi SURYADARMA.jpg
- File:Kolonel Maludin SIMBOLON.jpg
- File:Kolonel Bambang Utoyo.jpg
- File:Raden SUWIRJO.jpg
- File:Mr. A. Karim.jpg
- File:Djenderal Major Tahi Bonar Simatupang.jpg
- File:Laksmana Muda Laut, Raden SUBIAKTO.jpg
- File:Djendral Major Bambang Sugeng.jpg
- File:Kolonel Alex Evert Kawilarang.jpg
- File:Letkol Sudirman.jpg
- File:Letkol Mohamad Bachrun.jpg
- File:Kolonel SADIKIN.jpg
- File:Letkol F.J. WARROUW.jpg
- File:RUSLAN MULJOHARDJO.jpg
- File:Mr. Soetan Muhammad AMIN.jpg
- File:Dr. Mohamad ISA.jpg
- File:SAMADIKUN.jpg
- File:Rd. Sanoesi HARDJADINATA.jpg
- File:Raden BOEDIONO.jpg
- File:Raden SaidSOEKANTO TJOKRODIATMODJO.jpg
- File:Mr. TAMZIL.jpg
- File:Mr. R. SOEDJONO.jpg
- File:MUKARTO NOTOWIDIGDO.jpg
- File:Prof. Mr. Dr. Raden Soepomo.jpg
- File:Mr. A.A. Maramis.jpg
- File:Machmud L. Latjuba.jpg
- File:Mr. Usman Sastroamijoyo.jpg
- File:Lambertus Nicodemus Palar.jpg
- File:Mr. Sutan Mohamad Rasyid.jpg
- File:Mr. Sudjarwo Tjondronegoro.jpg
- File:Mr. Susanto Tirtoprodjo.jpg
- File:MayJend. Abdulkadir.jpg
- File:Arnold MONONUTU.jpg
- File:ANAK AGUNG GDE AGUNG.jpg
- File:Mr.Raden Tirtawinata.jpg
- File:ARSO SASROATMODJO.jpg
- File:M. Ardiwinangun.jpg
- File:ASRARUDIN.jpg
- File:Amri Yara.jpg
- File:Andi Gappa.jpg
- File:Amelz.jpg
- File:Kiyai Hadji Ahmad AZHARI,.jpg
- File:R. H. Moehamad Adnan.jpg
- File:AHEM ERNINGPRADJA.jpg
- File:Aidit, Dipa Nusantara.jpg
- File:Aboebakar Ariadiningrat, R., Kami Perkenalkan (1954), p81.jpg
- File:Abdulhajat, Kami Perkenalkan (1954), p81.jpg
- File:Aboe Bakar, Kami Perkenalkan (1954), p81.jpg
Kept: All these portraits are taken from the book Kami Perkenalkan, published by the Kementerian Penerangan in 1954 where {{PD-IDGov}} applies. This includes also the portraits (see (c) in the quoted text of the license). --AFBorchert (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Added to the list and kept (was omitted in this DR). Ellywa (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This banknote may be copyrighted Johnj1995 (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This is not the own work by the uploader as claimed, hence the license tag {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is inappropriate. This is a scan of the LL 5,000 bill, apparently issued in 2004 and 2008 according to Banque du Liban. In principle, we assume bills to be copyrighted like other works unless we know that there exists an exception. As of now Commons:Currency includes no information about the situation in Lebanon and no proof has been provided by the uploader. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Photoshopped U.S. banknote. No encyclopedic value. Out of scope. Johnj1995 (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:ZonianMidian
[edit]- File:20000 Pesos Colombianos (Reverso).jpg
- File:20000 Pesos Colombianos (Anverso).jpg
- File:20000 Pesos Colombianos (Anverso) - Antiguo.jpg
- File:10000 Pesos Colombianos (Anverso) - Antiguo.jpg
- File:50000 Pesos Colombianos (Reverso) - Antiguo.jpg
- File:50000 Pesos Colombianos (Anverso) - Antiguo.jpg
- File:100000 Pesos Colombianos (Reverso).jpg
- File:10000 Pesos Colombianos (Anverso).jpg
- File:10000 Pesos Colombianos (Reverso).jpg
- File:50000 Pesos Colombianos (Anverso).jpg
- File:20000 Pesos Colombianos (Reverso) - Antiguo.jpg
- File:5000 Pesos Colombianos (Reverso).jpg
- File:10000 Pesos Colombianos (Reverso) - Antiguo.jpg
- File:2000 Pesos Colombianos (Anverso).jpg
- File:50000 Pesos Colombianos (Reverso).jpg
- File:100000 Pesos Colombianos (Anverso).jpg
- File:2000 Pesos Colombianos (Reverso).jpg
- File:5000 Pesos Colombianos (Anverso).jpg
Delete per COM:CUR Colombia. Johnj1995 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
In the licensing portion of the page, there is a statement added by User:Kerry LaMana in 2019 saying "Kerry LaMana is the author of this photo. This is not free to use. Original uploader had no right or permission to do so." I think this is a case of COM:LL. The file itself is unused, small, and has no EXIF data. Howhontanozaz (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: The Flickr account 21241181@N00, also named consumerist appears to be a collector of copyvios who choses to "grant" CC-BY licenses for these images. The photographs in this collection have widely varying cameras or no EXIF at all. Albums like this one consist obviously just of copyvios. Hence, we have to delete this per COM:PRP. I've added this Flickr account to User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't like it anymore 183.83.210.75 05:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This appears to be a request by the uploader, even as IP. There were similar deletion requests for the other uploads (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Victor Awungshi.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timmi Rinpam.jpg). As this file has a low resolution and no EXIF data, it is likely a copyvio, taken from some social media. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Logo stated as own work. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 06:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Previously deleted file. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ULAflag.jpg Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 06:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted for the 3rd time; false license & claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a song/album cover used on the deleted page ru:Mc-Gu$ь. Stated as own owrk. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Edu! as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright infringement
Converted to regular DR as no evidence for copyvio has been provided. Image has in high resolution and was uploaded in 2017. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Same circumstances with File:Thiago Amaral em 2016.jpg
- @Túrelio: Hi! Thanks for your editing, but I think {{Speedy}} would be the best option. The images are part of the release of the telenovela w:Cúmplices de um Resgate. The images were also posted on the actor's Instagram: [1] [2]. Other images from the same essay can be seen on the same social network. Edu! (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Asserted to be "own work" but gives a credit to another person; one of several images uploaded by an editor who appears not to understand about copyright. PamD (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Asserted to be "own work" but when added to article this editor added "(Credit: Realy Easy Star/Alberto Maisto/Alamy)", suggesting that this editor does not understand copyright PamD (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without educational use + low quality CuriousGolden (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted OOS -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
no realistic educational use, just poor penis selfie Pibwl (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Promotional picture ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement, poor quality. 37.137.23.51 13:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't copyright and I got permission from the owner of the work. Danial2703kurdistan (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Danial2703kurdistan: Show us the license.--2.176.35.162 16:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete poor quality copy. GPinkerton (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll show you the license. Danial2703kurdistan (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Unused language link template no longer required after the page has been migrated to the Translate extension. Originally deleted under COM:CSD#T2, restored and sent to DR after User:RZuo contested the deletion. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep it was an integral part of an important page on commons for 15 years -> {{Historical}}. with it deleted, an old revision of a page with the template will not display correctly. -- RZuo (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Closed as Kept per RZuo. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Obvoiusly no own photo, published for example here allready in 2020. Druschba 4 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
External source and unknown author, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Published here allready in 2016, see first picture and url, no free license. Druschba 4 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete as per Druschba. In addition the lack of EXIF info and the typical image dimensions for internet photos. --Mosbatho (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Extremely dubious own-work claim. es:Pedro Jose Campos died in the 19th century, so if it's own-work, the uploader is immortal or a time-traveller. Looks like a crop from some other piece of art. (See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:José Videla Castillo.jpg) Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Extremely dubious own-work claim. es:Jose Videla Castillo died in 1832, so if it's own-work, the uploader is immortal or a time-traveller. Looks like a crop from some other piece of art. (See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pedro Campos Gobernador.jpg) Premeditated Chaos (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
No source, possible copyvio: cropped screenshot from one of Slovenian talkshows (probably RTVSLO Dobro Jutro or smth.) A09090091 (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Cropped version of this photo taken from the artist's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BWFQTSCHn4Z/, whose author is @lukeographyau. Obviously not "own work". -sasha- (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
unused, useless, no cat, no encyclopedic value, low quality, out of scope, etc F (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Félix Joffre died in1989. No freedom of panorama in France. 2A01:CB00:A05:D100:DDAA:5F33:FE80:40EF 19:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Redundant with File:Ivythorn Hill Sign - geograph.org.uk - 1448504.jpg. Not quite a duplicate because that one's been rotated to the correct orientation, but this sideways version is of no use as it is. bjh21 (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
This image was published in a newspaper prior to being uploaded here. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/introducing-squirrelman-the-amateur-photographer-taking-amazing-squirrel-pics_uk_60479bedc5b6a973f9551a13 The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Updated: How do we know the image was uploaded by its author and not by someone else? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
OOS (Out Of Scope) The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Language links template no longer required for COM:POTD. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
COM:NOTUSED and promotional Nw520 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE user-generated flag; violation of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". GPinkerton (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
This image has been sent to me on a social network and I downloaded it, and after that uploaded it by mistake, as you can see at the info table below, it was not uploaded as original image taken with my cell phone camera. Please delete it as I uploaded it by mistake and I do not hold the rights to it, since I am not the original photographer who took it. Borjanaarsova (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation 86.212.181.131 12:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Shri Ashwini Vaishnaw taking charge as the Union Minister for Railways, in New Delhi on July 08, 2021 (1)(cropped).jpg
[edit]It is not the user's own work, it's the Press Information Bureau, Government of India's work. The details of this image have not been shown properly. VNC200 (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of project scope.
- File:Flaccid small penis.jpg
- File:Untrimmed pubic hair.jpg
- File:..View of anogenital region and thighs.jpg
- File:..scrotum buttocks and perineum.jpg
- File:..scrotum perineum and buttocks.jpg
- File:..perineum and scrotum.jpg
- File:..penis scrotum and perineum.jpg
- File:Scrotum1.jpg
- File:Male anus and perineum.jpg
- File:Smallpenis8.jpg
- File:A male anus and perineum.jpg
- File:Male perineum and anus.jpg
- File:Smallpenis011.jpg
- File:Smallpenis010.jpg
- File:Smallpenis7.jpg
- File:Smallpenis6.jpg
- File:Smallpenis5.jpg
- File:Smallpenis4.jpg
- File:Smallpenis3.jpg
- File:Smallpenis2.jpg
- File:Smallpenis.jpg
-akko (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Self male nude session, no realistic educational use, poor quality. The rest of photos have some potential value due to penis size (probably not all...).
- File:Turning away.jpg
- File:Strolling about bathroom.jpg
- File:Ready for bath.jpg
- File:Bathroom nude.jpg
- File:Male buttocks 58 year old.jpg
- File:Cold and naked.jpg
- File:Mooning buttocks.jpg
- File:Sunlit legs.jpg
- File:About to lie down.jpg
- File:Lower legs and feet.jpg
- File:Legs and butt in the sun.jpg
- File:Bare feet in sunshine.jpg
- File:Male thigh and hip.jpg
- File:Male thigh, inner.jpg
Pibwl (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete As seen at olympics.com, the "free type" term does not mean free of copyright. It means without a frame. These works are copyright The Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, are not the work of the uploader, and are not available under a license compatible with Commons. Hammersoft (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Likely to be above Japanese COM:TOO. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Inaccurate - Texas did not have a Democratic governor in 2007. Elli (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the uploader's own work. Used at https://www.linkedin.com/in/cui-kai/ JalenFolf (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Replaced by File:EB1911 Cuneiform 1.png DivermanAU (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Logo stated as own work. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 07:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Likely taken from an older version of the page http://www.patelcpa.com/-Our-Team.aspx which has the same image in a red border. Additionally, no usage on Wikimedia projects and no apparent educational use, therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Photo of old photo, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
orphaned user-page image without context, unusable because of watermark. Fl.schmitt (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by "Koorosh behzad" (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not your personal free web host.
- File:Cash paradise.pdf
- File:Schizophrenia of subjectivism.pdf
- File:Philosophy of Two.pdf
- File:Warrior Gods.pdf
Achim (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope: At best "Excluded educational content" (raw text); at worst no educational value. I suspect we would also need proof of permission for the cover images.--Headlock0225 (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Logo that should have threshold of originality uploaded without sufficient information on the license. It comes from here https://twitter.com/spdqueer?lang=de Christian Bolz (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This image serves no purpose other than promoting this user's facebook group, it is a blatant example of soapboxing and self-promotion to spread an agenda on the english wikipedia. It has no discernible or plausible encyclopedic value. Shibbolethink (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Personal picture of non-contributor. Out of project scope. Schlurcher (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly out of project scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Private Picture. Out of project scope Schlurcher (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Private Picture Out of Project Scope Schlurcher (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The metadata contains clear copyright information. Need permission from them to license the photo. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Poor quality, distorted image. Seemingly a photo of a screen or monitor and therefore unlikely to be own work as claimed. mattbr 16:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Claimed free license not seen at source website -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete "©2018 鎌池和馬／山路新／ＫＡＤＯＫＡＷＡ／PROJECT-ACCELERATOR" at the source website. --Mosbatho (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Personal picture, not in use. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 22:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Personal picture, not in use. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 22:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete from uploader: This link from TheChive.com cites to a blog post from VA.gov, with Ross being nominated as "Veteran of the Week." There is no evidence VA page that the photo of Ross in uniform was taken by someone in or affiliated with the USAF or the US Military in general. In fact, there's a statement at the bottom of the post that reads: "It’s easy to nominate a Veteran. All it takes is an email to (VA email address) with as much of the information as you can put together with some good photos." So with this in mind, someone could've copied the image from Imgur or elsewhere, and submitted it with the nomination of Ross as VOTW. So, unless someone can dig up good evidence that this photo was done by military personnel, this file should be deleted. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I found a video on military.com that contained this image. According to the timestamp, it was created before this image was uploaded to Chive or Commons. I'm leaning towards this image being legitimate. --Diriector Doc (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Even if it is not the work of the USAF, would it not fall into Template:PD-US-not renewed or Template:PD-US-no notice? --SVTCobra 14:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely it was published before 2016 VA mention. Looks like a studio portrait -- the photographer would hold the copyright. Sgts didn't get formal studio portraits done by the USAF. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 07:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 07:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 07:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 07:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 07:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 07:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 07:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 07:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 07:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 08:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Szajci as Copyvio (copyright) Szajci pošta 08:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nathaniel Filip as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Mazaní vlastního díla
Converted to regular DR, as file does not qualify for speedy. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Request to delete my own work. Nathaniel Filip (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Uploaded more than 2 years ago. Too long ago for quick courtesy deletion. Looks to be in scope. Why do you think it should be deleted? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would like to delete this picture which I uploaded here some years ago because it is not my own work. Nathaniel Filip (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: "my own work", "not my own work" - I'm not sure what to believe here, please make up your mind. Please sort this out per e-mail with COM:VRT if really necessary, though I doubt it's really urgent since half a year has passed since this DR was opened. --Rosenzweig τ 07:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
urheberechlich geschütztes Lichtbild (Foto eines Fotos), kein OTRS-Ticket, keine Nennung der Urheberschaft des Ursprungbildes, Rechteinhaber ist möglicherweise VERBUND AG, Wien Mateus2019 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think, Commons:FOP Austria applies. It is a two dimensional work (a foto) permanently in a public place. Keep --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stevemoonman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uncredited publicity shots of actor Moore Marriot. Not the own work of the uploader, photos are undated and possibly not old enough to have become public domain yet.
Lord Belbury (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stella bulkina (talk · contribs)
[edit]3 files taken from FB per MD, unlikely to be own work and 2 Out of Scope letters
- File:Джозеф Алхазов.jpg
- File:Министр Обороны Авигдор Либерман На вручении премии.jpg
- File:Министр по делам Иерусалима Зеев Элькин.jpg
- File:Награда президента Израиля.jpg
- File:Hanasi.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Uploader suggests he is one of the people in the photo, need permission from the photographer to license it. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The maon fouc is the vidoe game screenshot, of Team Fortress 2, which is the main focus of that image, and is copyrighted too. Eaaaaugh (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, albeit reluctantly. I referred to Commons:Screenshots to see what the rules for screenshots are. This isn't a "pure" screenshot, but it does include screen images. Team Fortress 2 isn't freely licensed software and although this image is licensed freely, it was made by a third party, not Valve, the TF2 copyright holder, so it fails on that account. I also don't think this is de minimis usage, since the screen images are integral to the image's purpose. I would support uploading a fair-use-compliant smaller copy of the image on Wikipedia, though. Tisnec (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete per Tisnec. SHB2000 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Uploader suggests they are the person in the photo, need permission from the copyright holder indicated in the metadata. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Dieses Foto zeigt nicht das Denkmal, wie es im Titel heißt. Die Büste, die denkmalgeschützt ist, ist auf dem Foto nicht zu erkennen. Gliwi (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Kein gültiger Löschgrund. Wenn an Beschreibung oder Dateinamen etwas nicht passt, bearbeite diese bitte; für Hinweise, wie man einen Dateinamen ändert, siehe COM:FR. Tokfo (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nach einem Blick in die Beschreibung auf Liste der Baudenkmäler in Vilshofen an der Donau und Google Maps erkennt man, dass das Foto die Nordseite des Hauses am Kirchplatz zeigt, während die Südseite mit dem Relief rückseitig zur Vils hin liegt. Dennoch ist das kein Löschgrund, denn das Foto idenfiziert immerhin das fragliche Haus. De728631 (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion: licensing ok (own work), FOP ok. --Mosbatho (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Этот файл (фотография) представляет изображение несвободного (не определению свободного произведения культуры) произведения как основной объект съёмки. Look at COM:FOP Russia . — MUSA (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This picture seems to be copied as it appears in several places on the web (such as this one). It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is an authentic photograph of Eran Badinerie by the photographer Yaniv Tamir. You can see in the following link this photo in its color version by the same photographer Yaniv Tamir on the same photo date - 7.10.2016
- Also, the link that editor Ldorfman presented in his deletion request is a link to Eran Badinerie's website, which proves that Eran Badinerie appears in this photo.
- It is sad to note that editor Ldorfman previously tried to delete Eran Badinerie's Wikipedia page but lost in the vote. This is probably why he is now trying to delete an authentic photo of Eran Badinerie without any reason, a photo that has all the rights to appear on Wikipedia. ליאנה בוירשטיין (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- ליאנה בוירשטיין, First of all, I'm not in any race or competition here. I successfully contribute to Wikimedia projects for 11 years now and by chance, got to this picture now. I had not even remembered I talked about the notability of this person and as I found now, I'm not the one who opened the deletion vote on this subject. To the issue we're now here for, if there's no problem in using this picture, simply obtain the release note for it, as requested for using it in the Commons and Wikipedia. You can find a relevant statement for that in the He.Wikipedia page titled "OTRS:ויקיפדיה". Without this formal permission to use this picture for any use, it has no legal basis to remain in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- No valid reason for deletion. ליאנה בוירשטיין (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- ... ליאנה בוירשטיין, as long as you obtain a release note. Otherwise, there is. Ldorfman (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- If so, all photos of Eran Badinerie should be deleted. None of them has a release note. The uploader of the photo, Yaniv Tamir, is the one that took this photo. It appears in the details of the photo. You decided by yourself that the uploader did not took the photo himself. The problem is your assumption, not the photo. If you are asking for a release note for this photo, you should ask it as well for Eran Badinerie's other photos. Otherwise, you have an unclear desire to delete this specific photo. ליאנה בוירשטיין (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- ליאנה בוירשטיין, maybe something I wrote wasn't clear. This request for a release note isn't something unusual. In Wikimedia projects we take copyright issues very seriously. Hence, in order to save an image in Wikimedia so that it can be used on Wikipedia, we need an official statement from the copyright holder stating that the image can be published and reused for any use, including commercial. From some reason, you're the one answering instead of the photographer, so go on and ask him to obtain the form. I saw that you removed today other pictures from the related article, while actually, some pictures could stay under Fair Use. Your actions are motivated from an unclear reasons, but if you have any questions, please ask. You may contact me in my user page in Hebrew.Wikipedia if you prefare it to be in Hebrew. I would be glad to answer any question. Ldorfman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- If so, all photos of Eran Badinerie should be deleted. None of them has a release note. The uploader of the photo, Yaniv Tamir, is the one that took this photo. It appears in the details of the photo. You decided by yourself that the uploader did not took the photo himself. The problem is your assumption, not the photo. If you are asking for a release note for this photo, you should ask it as well for Eran Badinerie's other photos. Otherwise, you have an unclear desire to delete this specific photo. ליאנה בוירשטיין (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- ... ליאנה בוירשטיין, as long as you obtain a release note. Otherwise, there is. Ldorfman (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- No valid reason for deletion. ליאנה בוירשטיין (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- ליאנה בוירשטיין, First of all, I'm not in any race or competition here. I successfully contribute to Wikimedia projects for 11 years now and by chance, got to this picture now. I had not even remembered I talked about the notability of this person and as I found now, I'm not the one who opened the deletion vote on this subject. To the issue we're now here for, if there's no problem in using this picture, simply obtain the release note for it, as requested for using it in the Commons and Wikipedia. You can find a relevant statement for that in the He.Wikipedia page titled "OTRS:ויקיפדיה". Without this formal permission to use this picture for any use, it has no legal basis to remain in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Appears at https://607d8dff1b2ce.site123.me/ with a copyright notice, therefore policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
William Ellison (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded this file by error. The name is wrong and tha same image already exists in the category
- Comment no duplicate seen in either of the categories on this image. Has the duplicate already been deleted? If not, could you please name/link the file in question? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion. The other file (File:Captieux - Place principale 2.jpg) is slightly smaller and missing the stamp. Wrong filename can be addressed with {{Rename}}. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
i wannit to Riadboussaid (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader's request. Photo is an unused personal selfie. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
=
Deleted: courtesy deletion of personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
i wannit to Riadboussaid (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request, unused user photo. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Already done per above. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Reverse image + date search shows image on Mapio 2 years before supposed date. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom: https://tineye.com/search/54dadb784b4dc4f020d3a6076368528be1a42d3e. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The file is the logo of Nanjing Lukou International Airport, in which per COM:TOO China, the threshold of originality in China is quite low. The file therefore may be copyrightable and be unfree locally, and failed the requirement that a work must be free in the country of original publication and the United States according to COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted false license -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Please can the uploader provide further details to confirm this file is their own work. A similar version of this image was published in 2011 at www.laopinioncoruna.es. Low resolution file with limited metadata. Unlikely to be the uploader's own work as claimed. mattbr 08:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence of permission. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Image is dated 1937 and the source image is therefore unlikely to be the uploader's own work as claimed. Either source and author information is needed to determine the correct copyright status, or please can the uploader provide further details to confirm this file is their own work. mattbr 08:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above. Unclear source, apparent COM:DW of printed photo from book or magazine rather than scan of original photo, dubious license claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not the copyright holder. 181.203.42.109 16:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted CV -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Фото низкого разрешения взято тут http://edu.tltsu.ru/sites/sites_content/site122/html/media67247/faberze.pdf Объявлено собственной работой
Нарушение авторских прав Трифонов Андрей (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Copyvio. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted https://www.curtisbrown.co.uk/client/guz-khan Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Copyvio. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a photo of another person's portrait photo, uploaded to Flickr with a less than clear description: Guz Khan, BAFTA Nominee Portrait, 2020 by Rankin National Portrait Gallery means that this is a portrait by an artist who goes by the name Rankin, which was displayed at the National Portrait Gallery (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw304563/Guz-Khan). The original portrait was not taken by Flickr user Amanda Slater and cannot be released under a CC-licence by her.
Crop of the same image at File:Guz Khan (cropped).jpg should also be removed. Belbury (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - author's name on Wikivoyage and on the watermark are not the same. 2001:A61:10B7:9D01:532:A745:6951:CF39 13:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Likely copyvio; photo from https://www.jetphotos.com/ and unlikely to be own work. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
looks like file corrupted. it is a 1x1 pixel. please reupload if possible. Orizan (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
don't delete, it's part of a book. It's an empty page, which has been reduced to 1x1 pixel by someone instead of the original page --Jörgens.Mi Talk 20:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 22:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Only upload of the Panoramio user. Possible Panoramio laundring, since it's a doctor's clinic, a commercial building. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: No obvious reason why an ordinary user could not take a photo of a commercial building. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The logo is comprised of basic geometric shapes and colors. So nothing about it meets the threshold of originality that is needed in America for something to copyrightable. Otherwise, I'd like to know how exactly it's above TOO. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Original creation by Hans Kleefeld in 1967. — Racconish 💬 10:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to that or any evidence that he holds a copyright to it? Because it doesn't really matter who designed it, what matters if it's copyrightable or not. Just citing who drew it doesn't prove anything about it being above TOO or not. That's not what the originality rule is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: COM:TOO US is very high, regardless of who created it. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE: Poor quality reproduction of a Baidu emoji which a free alternative (File:Huaji2.png) already exists. Mys_721tx (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- 笔画太粗--RTX 3090 (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. SCP-2000 08:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
： Keep--RTX 3090 (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused; only "keep" !voter failed to give a rationale. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Temporary election posters with coyrighted photographs, FOP does not apply (or at least there is significant doubt about that), see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Permanent Discostu (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- It‘s not clear. I quote: „There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures.“ --KimHolgerKelting (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- My reading of the Precautionary principle is: If the copyright status is not clear, the file should not be on Commons. -- Discostu (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Election posters are clearly intended to be displayed for a limited time only (until the election or a few days after the election), so there is no permanent nature and thus no freedom of panorama. These posters are also clearly the focus of the image, so de minimis cannot apply as well. --Rosenzweig τ 08:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
File:14-01-24-перейти в Пальма-де-Майорка-RalfR-DSCN1209-135 ( Grand Holiday is recropped).jpg
[edit]Redundant to File:14-01-24-перейти в Пальма-де-Майорка-RalfR-DSCN1209-135 (Grand Holiday).jpg Angelgreat (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - unused, agree with the uploader/nominator that it is redundant. -M.nelson (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to File:14-01-24-перейти в Пальма-де-Майорка-RalfR-DSCN1209-135 (Grand Holiday).jpg Angelgreat (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - unused, agree with the uploader/nominator that it is redundant. -M.nelson (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Refer to Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Formosa_loves_river. This file was supposedly similiar. It was also raised on Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Landform_of_Formosa.png currently. The uploader twice removed the no source derivative tag with additional sources. However, all seems to be copyrighted and my arguments on the 1st DR still stand. According to them, these images are from NASA however, NASA requires commercial users to gain permission if anyone use the images, hence, incomptable with CCBYSA, and derivate images doesn't exempt. Hence, dubious copyright status and delete. Cohaf (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Academia Sinica, Taiwan.、Academia Sinica's provided materials. and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Formosa_loves_river. The evidence is very clear. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- If this is about ASTER data, while it is jointly produced between the U.S. and Japan, it seems to be free. w:Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer says as much. It sounds like the GDEM data is an automated processing (i.e. no additional copyright) over the raw ASTER data, such as this. Some of the data was charged for, but if there is no charge (and they say it's available for anyone) then I would presume (like most NASA stuff) it's OK, even if not technically PD-USGov it's probably close enough. Given the description of the data, unsure if they really aim the satellite for particular photos, or if that is pretty much automated as well, meaning there may not be any copyright to begin with. The source website has all kinds of open source links, so they seem to think it's OK to use. I really can't think of any reasons why it would not be OK, other than extreme theoretical cases. I'd probably just call it PD-USGov-NASA (though credit the Japanese METI as well). Whether the user added enough expression to generate a copyright they can license, I am less sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is really a very interesting case, we need to find a proper license for it if this file is kept. I am keen to have every step of the file making and every free use license documented if this is kept to protect us from legal issues. Thanks for your analysis Clindberg, appreciate this.--Cohaf (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is a case-by-case thing, per m:Wikilegal/NASA images, since Japan's METI ministry is involved. But, per [3], Beginning today, all Earth imagery from a prolific Japanese remote sensing instrument operating aboard NASA’s Terra spacecraft since late 1999 is now available to users everywhere at no cost. The public will have unlimited access to the complete 16-plus-year database for Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) instrument. On NASA's ASTER page, they say All ASTER data products are now available at no charge to all users. Those are basically the statements we have. There is no non-commercial restriction, and the intent seems pretty clear that derivative works are expected (that is the reason to release that stuff). So, maybe {{Copyrighted free use}} is the most accurate license. They do ask for a credit line typically, but I don't see that as a requirement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Per Sanmosa at the undeletion request, we need the uploaded to prove the steps needed to create the image, COM:PCP.--Cohaf (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is a case-by-case thing, per m:Wikilegal/NASA images, since Japan's METI ministry is involved. But, per [3], Beginning today, all Earth imagery from a prolific Japanese remote sensing instrument operating aboard NASA’s Terra spacecraft since late 1999 is now available to users everywhere at no cost. The public will have unlimited access to the complete 16-plus-year database for Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) instrument. On NASA's ASTER page, they say All ASTER data products are now available at no charge to all users. Those are basically the statements we have. There is no non-commercial restriction, and the intent seems pretty clear that derivative works are expected (that is the reason to release that stuff). So, maybe {{Copyrighted free use}} is the most accurate license. They do ask for a credit line typically, but I don't see that as a requirement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Anyway, if IGBA can make the source website change (or correct) the permission, I will appreciate that. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 04:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: Could you have a look, since you restored the images in the referenced DR? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. — Racconish 💬 05:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Solomon203 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © 2008-2021 QGIS. The uploader asserts that it is own work based on QGIS-provided materials. Geographic facts are not copyrightable. Did they use only facts from QGIS, or did they copy some form of creative expression from them? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. This file has been discussed in 2019 and I see no new information why the file should be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ~AntanO4task as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: image found in internet and social media. Please provide a link to the evidence. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep No link or other indication provided that proofs copyright violation. GeorgHH • talk 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This upload is the only edit by the uploader throughout all WMF projects. Apparently, this photo depicts a presenter of the Jathika Rupavahini TV channel. Given that there are no EXIF data, this appears unlikely the work by the uploader. I think that we should delete this per COM:PRP. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP . Uploader did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright situation of this image. --Ellywa (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
بیکیفیت بودن و وجود جایگزین
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 10.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 11.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 12.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 13.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 14.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 15.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 16.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 17.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 18.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 19.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 2 (cropped).jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 2.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 20.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 3 (cropped).jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 3.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 4.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 5.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 6.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 7.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 8.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29 9.jpg
- File:Nabai Watermill2021-06-29.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 10.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 11.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 12.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 14.jpg
File:Tala abad Watermill2021 15.jpg- Keep per COM:INUSE -M.nelson (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 16.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 2.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 3.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 4.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 5.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 6.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 7.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 8.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021 9.jpg
- File:Tala abad Watermill2021.jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021 12.jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021 2.jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021 3.jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021 4.jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021 5.jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021 6.jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021 7.jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021 8 (cropped).jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021 9 (cropped).jpg
- File:Talaabad Watermill2021.jpg
- File:Yakhchāl of Talaabad2021 14.jpg
- File:Yakhchāl of Talaabad2021 15 (cropped).jpg
POS78 (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- According to Google translate, the rationale is "poor quality and existence of alternatives". This set of images shows some watermills from a number of perspectives, and no specific replacements have been presented. Keep according to nomination, though images can be deleted per uploader's request if requested. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: 1- Images are of low quality. 2- Category:Nabay Watermill And Category:Tala Abad Watermill. 3- As the uploader of the images, I request that they be removed. {{User|POS78}} talk 18:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @4nn1l2: Can you check too? Thank you {{User|POS78}} talk 18:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't find these images of low quality. Please specify the ones which are indeed of low quality. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete If the uploader insists on the deletion of the images because he is a perfectionist and there are numerous alternatives, let them be deleted! 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as courtesy to a trusted uploader/contributor. The uploader has uploaded many other similar images in the same categories and only nominated those with quality issues, for example see Category:Nabay Watermill where only the images with washed-out colouring are nominated. I trust their judgement of which should be deleted. Note, one file File:Tala abad Watermill2021 15.jpg is in use and should be kept -M.nelson (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, all except one in use. Please check your images in future before uploading. --Ellywa (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep If "a quite artistic picture of two fish on a yellow plate about a traditional Marseille meal could not be protected by French law because of lack of originality" then I doubt an extremely basic pattern like this one can be. Otherwise, any image of woven cloth (or similar stitching patterns) from France could be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment French TOO notoriously very low. — Racconish 💬 10:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have evidence of that, especially in relation to logos? BTW, I saw one the other day with almost the exact same stitching pattern. Only in black and red. I wasn't even looking at logos at the time either. Let alone a similar one. So, I highly doubt anyone can claim it's original. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:TOO France. Even a specific color can be copyrighted. I did not find exactly the same design on the web. --Ellywa (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- This was already deleted and restored due to someone in the original deletion request saying "COM:TOO Italy is not clear. Kept until more info or precedents are found." In the second deletion request, when I mentioned it to Racconish COM:TOO Italy is not clear and more information is needed, their response was to cite the precautionary principle, without giving the extra information that the other person said was needed before this logo should be deleted.
- I don't think the precautionary principle should be used to de-facto justify deletion of anything that can't be shown to meet the threshold of originality in Italy. Especially since from what I understand Italy has a semi high bar for what constitutes an original work and in this case it's just a glorified text logo with a couple of squiggly lines. Which is in no way original. Otherwise, I'd still like to know how it is when there are thousands of similar logos out there. Including on this site. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment See here and here, particularly section 5 on the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law. — Racconish 💬 09:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Racconish: Instead of expecting people to read through an extremely long 9 paragraph article without saying how you think it applies can you just cite the exact part that you think is relevant and how you think it is instead? Because just glancing over section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law I don't see how it's relevant. Especially since logos aren't industrial designs. Which is what the law seems to apply to.
- Comment BTW, section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law repeatedly says that it applies to works created through industrial "manufacturing." In no way does this logo have anything to do with industrial manufacturing. The logo isn't an industrial manufactured product and it's not a logo for one either. So there's literally zero connection, even remotely, between this logo and what the law is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:TOO Italy threshold of originality is low in italy. It is always a bit subjective, but I think this logo is also above threshold. --Ellywa (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment This was already deleted and restored due to someone in the original deletion request saying "COM:TOO Italy is not clear. Kept until more info or precedents are found." Which as far as I know still applies and when I made Racconish aware of it in procedural close their response that the file should be deleted anyway because of the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle shouldn't be used to de-facto justify deletion of anything that can't be shown to meet the threshold of originality in Italy though. Especially since from what I understand Italy has a semi high bar for what constitutes an original work and in this case it's just a glorified text logo with some squiggly lines. Which is not original. Otherwise, it's on Racconish to say exactly how it is and how it goes against the TOO rules in Italy. Otherwise, the file should be kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- See here and here, particularly section 5 on the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law. — Racconish 💬 09:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment:@Racconish: Instead of expecting people to read through an extremely long 9 paragraph article without saying how you think it applies can you just cite the exact part that you think is relevant and how you think it is instead? Because just glancing over section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law I don't see how it's relevant. Especially since logos aren't industrial designs. Which is what the law seems to apply to. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law repeatedly says that it applies to works created through industrial "manufacturing." In no way does this logo have anything to do with industrial manufacturing. The logo isn't an industrial manufactured product and it's not a logo for one either. So there's literally zero connection, even remotely, between this logo and what the law is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:TOO Italy threshold of originality is low in italy. It is always a bit subjective, but I think this logo is also above threshold. --Ellywa (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment This was already deleted and restored due to someone in the original deletion request saying "COM:TOO Italy is not clear. Kept until more info or precedents are found." Which as far as I know still applies and when I made Racconish aware of it in procedural close their response that the file should be deleted anyway because of the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle shouldn't be used to de-facto justify deletion of anything that can't be shown to meet the threshold of originality in Italy though. Especially since from what I understand Italy has a semi high bar for what constitutes an original work and in this case it's just a glorified text logo with a couple of basic geometric shapes. Which is not original. Otherwise, it's on Racconish to say exactly how it is and how it goes against the TOO rules in Italy. Otherwise, the file should be kept. In the meantime, there's zero evidence that COM:TOO Italy has been clarified to the point where basic logos can be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- See here and here, particularly section 5 on the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law. — Racconish 💬 09:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @Racconish: Instead of expecting people to read through an extremely long 9 paragraph article without saying how you think it applies can you just cite the exact part that you think is relevant and how you think it is instead? Because just glancing over section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law I don't see how it's relevant. Especially since logos aren't industrial designs. Which is what the law seems to apply to. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law repeatedly says that it applies to works created through industrial "manufacturing." In no way does this logo have anything to do with industrial manufacturing. The logo isn't an industrial manufactured product and it's not a logo for one either. So there's literally zero connection, even remotely, between this logo and what the law is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:TOO Italy threshold of originality is low in italy. It is always a bit subjective, but I think this logo is also above threshold. --Ellywa (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This file was already nominated for deletion and was kept because Italy has a semi-high bar for what constitutes an original work and also to "COM:TOO Italy is not clear. Kept until more info or precedents are found." Racconish can it's above TOO, but there's zero evidence COM:TOO Italy has been made clearer since the original keep decision or that anyone has found more legal precedent since then to determine if it actually goes against COM:TOO Italy or not. In the meantime, the file should be kept until it's actually clear that it legally constitutes an original work. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- See here and here, particularly section 5 on the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law. — Racconish 💬 10:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @Racconish: Instead of expecting people to read through an extremely long 9 paragraph article without saying how you think it applies can you just cite the exact part that you think is relevant and how you think it is instead? Because just glancing over section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law I don't see how it's relevant. Especially since logos aren't industrial designs. Which is what the law seems to apply to. Where exactly does it say anything about logos? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, it's also worth mention that section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law repeatedly says that it applies to works created through industrial "manufacturing." In no way does this logo have anything to do with industrial manufacturing. The logo isn't an industrial manufactured product and it's not a logo for one either. So there's literally zero connection, even remotely, between this logo and what the law is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:TOO Italy threshold of originality is low in italy. It is always a bit subjective, but I think this logo is also above threshold. --Ellywa (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This file was already nominated for deletion and was kept because Italy has a semi-high bar for what constitutes an original work and also to "COM:TOO Italy is not clear. Kept until more info or precedents are found." Racconish can it's above TOO, but there's zero evidence COM:TOO Italy has been made clearer since the original keep decision or that anyone has found more legal precedent since then to determine if it actually goes against COM:TOO Italy or not. In the meantime, the file should be kept until it's actually clear that it legally constitutes an original work. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- See here and here, particularly section 5 on the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law. — Racconish 💬 10:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment:@Racconish: Instead of expecting people to read through an extremely long 9 paragraph article without saying how you think it applies can you just cite the exact part that you think is relevant and how you think it is instead? Because just glancing over section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law I don't see how it's relevant. Especially since logos aren't industrial designs. Which is what the law seems to apply to. Otherwise, where does it say anything about logos? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, it's also worth mention that section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law repeatedly says that it applies to works created through industrial "manufacturing." In no way does this logo have anything to do with industrial manufacturing. The logo isn't an industrial manufactured product and it's not a logo for one either. So there's literally zero connection, even remotely, between this logo and what the law is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The problem here is COM:TOO Italy is highly problematic. It is based on a single source [4] which is obsolete (it refers to a 2006 jurisprudence rendered obsolete by the Flos jurisprudence [5] and extrapolates without any source an old juriprudential solution on industrial design to logos ("Probably this applies to logos too"). Not only has the theory of scindibilita been dropped but the Italian legal analysis is now aligned on the European one with the consequence that cumulative protection under copyright and design laws is now permitted in Italy and copyright protection is granted to designs as long as such works posses creative character [6]. — Racconish 💬 11:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:TOO Italy threshold of originality is low in italy. It is always a bit subjective, but I think this logo is also above threshold. --Ellywa (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This file was already nominated for deletion and was kept because Italy has a semi-high bar for what constitutes an original work and also to "COM:TOO Italy is not clear. Kept until more info or precedents are found." Racconish can it's above TOO, but there's zero evidence COM:TOO Italy has been made clearer since the original keep decision or that anyone has found more legal precedent since then to determine if it actually goes against COM:TOO Italy or not. In the meantime, the file should be kept until it's actually clear that it legally constitutes an original work. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- See here and here, particularly section 5 on the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law. — Racconish 💬 10:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment :@Racconish: Instead of expecting people to read through an extremely long 9 paragraph article without saying how you think it applies can you just cite the exact part that you think is relevant and how you think it is instead? Because just glancing over section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law I don't see how it's relevant. Especially since logos aren't industrial designs. Which is what the law seems to apply to. Otherwise, where does it mention logos? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, it's also worth mention that section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law repeatedly says that it applies to works created through industrial "manufacturing." In no way does this logo have anything to do with industrial manufacturing. The logo isn't an industrial manufactured product and it's not a logo for one either. So there's literally zero connection, even remotely, between this logo and what the law is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:TOO Italy threshold of originality is low in italy. It is always a bit subjective, but I think this logo is also above threshold. --Ellywa (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Above TOO. Individual nomination further to procedural close — Racconish 💬 09:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This file was already nominated for deletion and was kept because Italy has a semi-high bar for what constitutes an original work and also to "COM:TOO Italy is not clear. Kept until more info or precedents are found." Racconish can it's above TOO, but there's zero evidence COM:TOO Italy has been made clearer since the original keep decision or that anyone has found more legal precedent since then to determine if it actually goes against COM:TOO Italy or not. In the meantime, the file should be kept until it's actually clear that it legally constitutes an original work. IMO it doesn't. Since it's just basic shapes. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- See here and here, particularly section 5 on the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law. — Racconish 💬 10:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @Racconish: Instead of expecting people to read through an extremely long 9 paragraph article without saying how you think it applies can you just cite the exact part that you think is relevant and how you think it is instead? Because just glancing over section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law I don't see how it's relevant. Especially since logos aren't industrial designs. Which is what the law seems to apply to. Otherwise, where does it say anything about logos? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment BTW, it's also worth mention that section 5 of the new article 239 of the Italian copyright law repeatedly says that it applies to works created through industrial "manufacturing." In no way does this logo have anything to do with industrial manufacturing. The logo isn't an industrial manufactured product and it's not a logo for one either. So there's literally zero connection, even remotely, between this logo and what the law is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:TOO Italy threshold of originality is low in italy. It is always a bit subjective, but I think this logo is also above threshold. --Ellywa (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Not own work. DerpGunKV2 (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Seems this work is taken as a press photo or similar by the russian military. I cannot find it in higher quality or less cropped on any other site so own work might as well be trusted here? Blockhaj (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful own work; can be found on the internet via Tineye before being uploaded here. If it is the uploader's own work they should provide permission to COM:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a sketch based on Henri Breuil's published drawing of a cave painting, but there's no suggestion that this sketch is out of copyright either. The authors cited (Clottes and Lewis-Williams) are both still alive, and the book this is taken from was published in 2001. Lord Belbury (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Lord Belbury
Asked by the user @Sergio09200 in the discussion page "Culture in Ariège", I allow myself to add a reasoned notice of conservation of the file. - Keep : The “Pintura Trois Freres.jpg” file (from 2001) is a derivative version ({{Derived from}}) of the “Doctor Suckling. Photograph. Wellcome M0008769.jpg” file, imported by Fæ on 23 October 2014, licensed under
CC-BY-4.0 (on 29 March 2018) and 
Public Domain Mark (PDM) (on 25 August 2021). We can reasonably have reservations with user Dcasawang1 (in 2012) for not filling out the {{Information}} template properly, but he did not mislead the license of the file.
- Historical
- The French prehistorian, Henri Breuil realizes from prints the "Dieu cornu (Horned God)" or "Sorcier (Sorcerer)" of the cave of the Trois-Frères (French: , Montesquieu-Avantès, Ariège) dating from the Magdalenian period (links: French: and French: ). A posthumous work was published in 2005, retracing the work of its author on the subject (link: gallica.bnf.fr 2001. {{Gallica}} et {{PD-GallicaScan}}), other representations were made (link: PDF French: , 1989, PDF French: , 2005 et French: , page 3, 2010). None of the cited editions make copyright notices.
Regards, —— DePlusJean (Talk) 03:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
.png){kind=link}
._Widoczny_klasztor.jpg){kind=link}
,_p81.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_Biological_Warfare_FB_Post.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![117 File:Robert N. "Bob" Ross 1960s Air Force.jpg](#File:Robert_N._"Bob"_Ross_1960s_Air_Force.jpg){kind=link}
_(2279211019).jpg){kind=link}
_219.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
._Widoczny_klasztor.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._Widoczny_klasztor.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Widoczny_klasztor.jpg){kind=link}
._Widoczny_klasztor.jpg){kind=link}
,_p81.jpg){kind=link}
,_p81.jpg){kind=link}
,_p81.jpg){kind=link}
,_p81.jpg){kind=link}
,_p81.jpg){kind=link}
,_p81.jpg){kind=link}
,_p81.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Antiguo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Antiguo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Antiguo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Antiguo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Antiguo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Antiguo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(cropped).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}
_Biological_Warfare_FB_Post.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Biological_Warfare_FB_Post.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Biological_Warfare_FB_Post.jpg){kind=link}
_Biological_Warfare_FB_Post.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![19:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/08/22#c-StrangeloveFan101-2021-08-20T19:24:00.000Z-File:Robert_N._"Bob"_Ross_1960s_Air_Force.jpg){kind=link}
![14:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/08/22#c-SVTCobra-2021-08-28T14:24:00.000Z-File:Robert_N._"Bob"_Ross_1960s_Air_Force.jpg){kind=link}
![15:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/08/22#c-Jameslwoodward-2021-10-09T15:57:00.000Z-File:Robert_N._"Bob"_Ross_1960s_Air_Force.jpg){kind=link}
_(2279211019).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2279211019).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2279211019).jpg){kind=link}
_(2279211019).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_219.jpg){kind=link}
_219.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_219.jpg){kind=link}
_219.jpg){kind=link}
_219.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-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&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. This version might be copyrighted. I made a redirect to the Wellcome image, which is more detailed. --Ellywa (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
PNG version at File:Space_Channel_5_Part_2_logo.png Nacaru (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep File:Space Channel 5 Part 2 logo.jpg is of higher resolution in comp. with the PNG version. Better to delete the lower resoluted one. --Mosbatho (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I forgot to say the background is not transparent either, it's "fake transparency" made with grey blocks 😅. Nacaru (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful b/c of the weird background - superseded by a better version.Jonteemil (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination - inferior to the PNG, particularly due to the non-transparent background. -M.nelson (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: without a source, date or author we have no way of verifying the Swedish copyright template is complied with or applicable. The subject died in 2005 and being born in 1921 he could easily be over 30 years of age in this photo, so to me the photo is unlikely taken pre-1951 per the Swedish template requirement. I searched for a source but did not find one and besides which it probably is not URAA compliant either. The only other image I ever found and uploaded 12 years ago, was this non-free w:File:Czeslaw Slania.png that this replaced in the subject's article w:Czesław Słania. Ww2censor (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The last condition states that "photographic pictures", like press-pictures, created before 1969 are free. The source is Svenskt konstnärslexikon which was published 1952–1967--I99pema (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I99pema: There is no such condition noted in the template {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and being published between 1952 and 1967 does not comply with the pre-1951 requirement as specifically written in the template. Ww2censor (talk)
- The first condition (w. 1951) applies to Photographic works. The second - which is the one relevant in this case - to Photographic pictures. --I99pema (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I99pema: There is no such condition noted in the template {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and being published between 1952 and 1967 does not comply with the pre-1951 requirement as specifically written in the template. Ww2censor (talk)
- Keep Photo without artistic value published before 1969 are free of copyright. The photo uses the correct license template {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and specifies the source as Svenskt konstnärslexikon (Q10685690) published from 1952 to 1967. /ℇsquilo 05:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
A journalist say on Twitter, this is wrong Shev123 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep this probably looks like a coincidental name match. Should this photo be deleted because it is a personal photo? --Mosbatho (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Portuguese Wikipedia are using the image of the wrong guy... It is clearly misleading and just a joke on french wiki. We don't know who is the guy on the picture. --Shev123 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete If we trust that the uploader is a random individual named Paul Bernardoni, then it's a personal photo and out of scope. If the photo is of the footballer en:Paul Bernardoni, then I doubt the uploader is Bernardoni themselves or has permission to upload the photo (if they do, they should provide permission to COM:VRT). -M.nelson (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Image is not in use today. Personal photo of unknown person, therefore of no educational value and out of COM:SCOPE. --Ellywa (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MSG17 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Armenia doesn't seem to have TOO, so it can't fall under it Sreejith K (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was mistaken, it looks likes Armenia does has TOO ([7], p. 9). I don't know much about it (the document just says that works with a "material form" resulting in a "unique outcome of creative activity" are protected, nothing about how high or low it is though) but it's there. MSG17 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. On Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Armenia no mention is made about TOO. If this changes in future on basis of the link provided by MSG17, the image might be undeleted. --Ellywa (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Reverse image + date search shows photo on Mapio 2 years before claimed date -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can't find any results with TinEye or Google, though the very similar File:CentreReghaia2.jpg, which is already up for deletion, is certainly a copyvio. Delete per COM:PCP. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
