Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/08/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
likely taken from [1] Jan Myšák (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
It was uploaded incorrectly, file info is wrong. Herewegomagic (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Please take down. File info is incorrect. Herewegomagic (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no permission (No permission since). Useful image, so starting a DR to get an "Undelete" stamp on this. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: 1963+70+1 = 2034. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright © 2010-2021 Freepik Company S.L. Todos os direitos reservados. https://br.freepik.com/fotos-premium/vista-aerea-da-cidade-de-mococa-sao-paulo-brasil_7162895.htm Lentoster (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Collage of unsourced images, at least one shown above not free licensed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
no sources and suspected violation after being warned of multiple copies but refuses to understand that violations are not allowed Lentoster (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Collage of unsourced photos-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope and no COM:EDUSE due to very poor quality. Achim (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Very blurry poor quality photo without evident compensating importance; shifting captions by uploader suggesting it is a private joke; one "FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY" suggests not actually free licensed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I, Richard Waller, uploaded this file in error. Brassknocker (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The focus of this photo is the subject displayed on the monitor, which is an inappropriate derivative work. ✗plicit 08:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP US, freedom of panorama only extends to architecture. This is an unacceptable derivative work of a copyrighted billboard. ✗plicit 08:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Clearly DW of billboard which reproduces two photographs likely to be under copyright. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
sorry - possible copyright violation - scanned postcard with no hint, what was copyright law in Bulgaria in 1960s... Pibwl (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Not old enough, incorrect license. Per Bulgarian law, 70 years for anon work, 1960 year Bulgaria postcards not PD until start of 2031. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
own work? this is taken from an official picture, compare the images at http://shekulli.com.al/ndahet-nga-jeta-ne-moshen-97-vjecare-vito-kapo/ Albinfo (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
copyvio from https://www.fayebone.nl/dyantha-brooks/ Hoyanova (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted clear blatant CV -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
created accidentally; request by uploader Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of this file seems to be missing. Motacilla (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Glitch upload from Flickr; the original Flickr photo is not for Commons as clear DW CV. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of this file seems to be missing. Motacilla (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted glitch Flickr upload; full original photo already uploaded under another name. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Non-free licenses and fair useCopyright violation: The file/page has an unclear copyright status. ImanFakhri (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: what new could be added to existing collection of explicit materials? Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Unneeded penis selfie, no license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete Taken from Facebook with no evidence the image is released under cc-by-sa-4.0 or any other license compatible with Commons. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I am the author of this photo, I needed it for a project, but i no longer need it Alesmorasv1976 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Андрей Романенко at 15:46, 23 August 2021 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10) --Krdbot 20:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio. Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio. Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio considering the lack of sourcing/licensing info and previous uploads of the user. Dronebogus (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Likely a copyvio based on lack of licensing information and user upload history. Dronebogus (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Likely a copyvio based on lack of licensing information and user upload history. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted "Source= Pinterest" -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Likely a copyvio based on lack of licensing information and user upload history. Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
EDIT nomination withdrawn, accidental nomination. Dronebogus (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Closed nom withdrawn. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
From a YouTube video that does not have a usable license Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. CV. Claimed free license not supported by source. Internet Archives has an version from November 2018 [2], confirming that it wasn't free licensed back then either. (Too bad, was in use in multiple projects.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gbawden as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: taken from https://happydecay.com.au/illustrator/street-artist/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as uploader might well be the depicted person. Also, I've contacted the depicted person and asked for clarification. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I have just accepted permission for “File:Happy-decay-bjarni.jpg” under ticket:2021082410003004. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, after permission was verified by OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Davey2010/Walk 5 November 2020
[edit]These two photos depict an information panel at the Ranscombe Farm Nature Reserve in Cuxton in North Kent, United Kingdom. The text and the photos on this panel are eligible for copyright. Unfortunately, 2D-graphic works like these are not covered by freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom. Hence, we would need a permission by the respective copyright holders to keep them.
- File:Ranscombe Farm walk, 5 November 2020 (98).jpg
- File:Ranscombe Farm walk, 5 November 2020 (99).jpg
AFBorchert (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - One image blanked and needs revdelling, Other image is blurry and has been CSD'd. –Davey2010Talk 13:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: managed per user's request. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This image is missing the chlorine atom in mazindol. The uploader has already created a corrected version, uploaded with a different file name (File:(±)-Mazindol Enantiomere Structural Formulae.png), so this incorrect file is therefore no longer needed. Marbletan (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, delete! Best regards, --Jue (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: in agreement with the uploader. --Leyo 13:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Invalid copyright. Lenny Marks (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Regasterios at 13:04, 24 August 2021 UTC: No license since 22 August 2021 --Krdbot 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Regasterios at 13:05, 24 August 2021 UTC: No license since 22 August 2021 --Krdbot 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Regasterios at 13:05, 24 August 2021 UTC: No license since 22 August 2021 --Krdbot 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Regasterios at 13:05, 24 August 2021 UTC: No license since 22 August 2021 --Krdbot 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo, not used anywhere. Out of scope. Yahya (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Wdwd at 20:20, 24 August 2021 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10) --Krdbot 02:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation Marijeweterings (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Image page states it has a VRT permission ticket. Can someone check this? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Batch nom to follow, please be patient. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The source and author are claimed to be "Wikipedia"; on English Wikipedia, the same image with the same name is asserted to be non-free out of an abundance of caution. (Wikipedia itself did not create the photo and the CC license is probably incorrect.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Copyviol, blatant false license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Malachifaughnan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Used in promotional Wikidata item.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Already deleted by Regasterios. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
There seems to have been an error when creating this file - there's no video or useful audio Nikki (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikki: thank you, you are right. It was created during a test and I only kept it as a proof of a bug from Lingua Libre. I think it is better to delete it now. — WikiLucas (🖋️) 18:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Glitch file; uploader agrees with deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mrpenguinb (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Already deleted by Regasterios. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Chung Cư Quận Long Biên.jpg Diaochanoi60h (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:33, 26 August 2021 UTC: CSD G10 (files and pages created as advertisements) --Krdbot 14:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- No public domain licence, not my own work, copyright violation. Majorsmithers (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The above is correct. Delete. Escapement (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Uploader concurs with deletion request -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
No valid source Esigh (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 06:33, 27 August 2021 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ghammakhor --Krdbot 14:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Poorly drawn, with the HO group misplaced, and incorrectly drawn bonds. We have File:Chamaecydin.svg that should be used instead. Marbletan (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo, only used in a promotional wikidata item. That item was also nominated for delation. Yahya (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Self-promotion, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
self-promotion, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
self-promotional, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
self-promotion, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
self-promotional, out of project scope Zabe (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Official looking File uploaded by user previously blocked for copyvio, with no proof offered that it's genuine Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Copyright file with no fair use — NZFC(talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). The licensing section states it is under a CC license but not which one. Please specify a specific license. [24Cr][talk] 22:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually I need to draw pentafluorophenylxenon hexafluoroarsenate, not pentafluorophenylxenon hexafluoroarsenate, this is a very wrong thing Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader's own request. Marbletan (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete This should be handled as speedy DR with reason G7: Author or uploader request deletion. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio (G7). (non-admin closure) Marbletan (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Previously published at https://twitter.com/UFCBrasil/status/1194240929764270080?s=20 Ytoyoda (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Photo "via Living Magazine", need permission from the copyright holder listed in the metadata. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Denzcapili09 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logos with no source on where these came from. Uploader claims own work. While some may be too simple to pass Commons' acceptable limits on COM:Threshold of originality, these files may be problematic as the uploader didn't indicate where they got these logos from. Did they just drew the graphics of these logos? Uploader has also contributed problematic files, see their talk page.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, apparently fraudulent license on the last 2, and dubious on the 1st which is not in use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Image is unlikely self-photographed photo by Denzcapili09 (talk · contribs). There is a small "c" letter enclosed in a light blue square at the bottom right corner, which indicates this may have been taken somewhere. Uploader has uploaded various problematic images as seen in their talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. The person in the photos died in 1957.
- File:Фотография 1956г.JPG
- File:Башмарин Александр Яковлевич.JPG
- File:Башмарин Александр Яковлевич 1931г.JPG
Maxinvestigator (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; 1 alrady deleted. --Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Do not want to share the image publicly anymore. Chugh9994 (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep Attractive in scope image, free licensed on Commons since 2013. Far too late for courtesy deletion without reason. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Do not want to share the image publicly anymore. Chugh9994 (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Unless particular good reason for deletion is offered. In scope, free licensed on Commons since 2013. Far too late for courtesy deletion without reason. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
This image is widely credited to Theo & Juliet Photography, a commercial studio. The uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder, but if so, credible permission should be forwarded to the Volunteer Response Team. --Animalparty (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Author died in 2006: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Roba Toyotsu (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
We have tons of images from the avenue and this one doesn't have enough quality or value to be useful. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
unused logo of unknown (and unidentifiable, due to the poor description) organization Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Taken from Facebook ( see FBMD), no permission 188.123.231.37 21:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; pcp. --Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Private / self-promoting image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Habertix (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Livesteamloco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyright violations. User has a history of copyvio images, so claims of "own work" are dubious.
- File:NG15 134.jpg
- File:Isle of Man Railway 4-wheeler A.3.png
- File:Isle of Man Railway G.12 van.png
- File:Isle of Man Railway G.1 closed van.png
- File:Isle of man railway small 'F'.png
- File:Isle of Man Railway Large 'F' F.46.png
- File:Isle of man railway 'Empress Van'.png
- File:E2IMR.png
O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; I found some on FB, needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ohsnapitswinnie (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:SOTI Logo (Present).png
- File:SOTI Logo (2016).png
- File:SOTI Logo (2014).png
- File:SOTI Logo (2002).png
- File:SOTI Logo (2001).png
- File:SOTI logo on a transparent white background.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and no license at all. --JuTa 09:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Speedy under G10 - cf [3] Tymon.r (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Personal photo uploaded in February, no other contributions by uploader. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Little Savage as Logo.
COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-TextLogo, TOO. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Это ошибка Viki Dden (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of PS. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted image from Disney/Pixar TaurusEmerald (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted image from Disney/Pixar TaurusEmerald (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Unused image that could be replaced with TeX Ixfd64 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a picture of an earlier drawing. Original source is not clear. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be a picture of an earlier drawing. Original source is not clear. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Not my own work, copyright violation. Majorsmithers (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio, see https://tineye.com/search/d96d374ae1bbbbc86803e2a1a9d0893e4949d7fd?sort=score&order=desc&page=1 Tekstman (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://jamaica-star.com/article/news/20200628/barbados-ready-reopen-borders-july Tekstman (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mitte27 as no permission (No permission since). Can someone identify the date of this image? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
if this is passport photo, it's not own work as stated 188.123.231.37 20:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anatoliy (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Continental European breed files from Heather Moreton-Abounader Flickr stream
[edit]Per the author's June 2020 request to delete their photos, the licencing of these files is unclear. Although the RfD ended up closed as "kept", a consensus was reached to delete most of the files in question as a matter of precautionary principle and courtesy. Criteria for keeping any images would include
- being in use in one of more Wikimedia project (and not being easily replacable by a similarly valuable image), or
- having particular unique educational value, and
- posing minimal concerns in terms of COM:BLP.
The subset here discussed pertains to images featuring identified, continental European horse breeds. Most photos have been taken in public areas of Kentucky Horse Park, which is a theme park and an equestrian sports centre. In such images, most identifiable people are employees or performers of the park, or visiting exhibitors. -- Pitke (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention: even large watermarks can be (and have been) removed by retouching. Their presence should not be taken as a mark against a file's usefulness. --Pitke (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Proposed "keepers"
-
This looks like a heave line, and that would make it one of only two images in the scope. No humans or private identifiers. --Pitke at 16:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC) -
Best of the set of Belgian Draft headshots; scope otherwise hardly populated. No humans. --Pitke at 16:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC) -
In use in multiple wikis; nicest image of this rare breed working we have. No humans. --Pitke at 16:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC) -
In use; very best close-up of Leopard spots we have, although not irreplaceable. No humans. --Pitke at 16:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC) -
Best of the Andalusian longeing set, and nicest image in scope of longeing by far IMO. No humans. --Pitke at 16:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC) -
AFAIK unique to the scope of this sort of stunt. Rider's face not visible. --Pitke (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Currently one of 3 photos in the scope. Still unique in being the only front view. Rider's face not visible. ~~~~ -
-
Unique in quality of driving pictures and of the Friesian in its original jobs, despite low resolution. Person's face partially obscured and can be anonymised if desired. --Pitke (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC) -
Unique in quality in the scope of the Friesian in one of its iconic jobs, despite low resolution. People in picture are dressed for a performance at a public park and it's a normal non-private situation. --Pitke (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC) -
Good image of whip aid. Would be nice to keep but not irreplaceable. No faces. --Pitke (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC) -
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(2690237479).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-Mazindol_Enantiomers_Structural_Formulae.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_12101.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Mazindol_Enantiomers_Structural_Formulae.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Mazindol_Enantiomers_Structural_Formulae.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Mazindol_Enantiomere_Structural_Formulae.png){kind=link}
-Mazindol_Enantiomers_Structural_Formulae.png){kind=link}
-Mazindol_Enantiomers_Structural_Formulae.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The rest
- File:Alborozo 11 (2690566038).jpg
- File:Alborozo 12 (2689754253).jpg
- File:Alborozo 14 (2689754081).jpg
- File:Alborozo 15 (2690565734).jpg
- File:Andalusian (Uraneo) (2694412050).jpg
- File:Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2690237419).jpg
- File:Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2691048046).jpg
- File:Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2691048104).jpg
- File:Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2691048534).jpg
- File:Belgian Horse at the Kentucky Horse Park (3948668799).jpg
- File:Belgian Horse at the Kentucky Horse Park (3948669157).jpg
- File:Belgian Horse at the Kentucky Horse Park (3949450164).jpg
- File:Belgian Horse at the Kentucky Horse Park (3949450644).jpg
- File:Belgian Horse at the Kentucky Horse Park (love those big ole ears!) (3948668965).jpg
- File:Belgian Horses at the Kentucky Horse Park (3948669477).jpg
- File:Belgian Horses at the Kentucky Horse Park (3949450494).jpg
- File:Evergreen the horse (2009).jpg
- File:Evergreen the horse, rear view (2009).jpg
- File:Friesian (2692095179).jpg
- File:Friesian (2693598877).jpg
- File:Friesian (2694411738).jpg
- File:Friesian (2694411852).jpg
- File:Friesian (2694412340).jpg
- File:Friesian at the Kentucky Horsepark (2666908361).jpg
- File:Friesian at the Kentucky Horsepark (2666908401).jpg
- File:Friesians (2692095013).jpg
- File:Gotland-Russ Ponies.jpg
- File:Highflinger Vaulting Demonstration (2690237691).jpg
- File:Highflinger Vaulting Demonstration (2691048928).jpg
- File:Highflinger Vaulting Demonstration (2691048972).jpg
- File:I believe that this is the Andalusian Stallion Pecos (5966346891).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2694412050).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2690237419).jpg){kind=link}
_(2691048046).jpg){kind=link}
_(2691048104).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2691048534).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3948668965).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment: used in two wikis as an example of a white-grey horse. Fully replacable in that scope. --Pitke (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Krypton-Seni II (6006364261).jpg
- File:Krypton-Seni II (6006364567).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2693598799).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2693598939).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2694410820).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2694410856).jpg
- File:LIppizan (2694412120).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2694412462).jpg
- File:Lippizan (2694412572).jpg
- File:Percheron (2692908992).jpg
- File:The Andalusian stallion, Uraneo (2680987157).jpg
- File:Trakehner (2692908530).jpg
- File:Uraneo Andalusian (alborozos Half brother) (2694412182).jpg
- File:Uraneo Bay Andalusian (Half brother to Alborozo) (2690237607).jpg
.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&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}
_(2694412182).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2690237607).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted, mostly due to disturbing watermark, but some are kept. I managed the request like uploader's request, so I decided to delete more easily than usually. Taivo (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BFigueroaF (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Not the work of the United States military, but a third-party photographer Ytoyoda (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete good catch. Multichill (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Drama League Awards
[edit]I meant to add these to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Drama League Awards. These are Drama League Flickr photos credited to 3rd party photographers and marked ©.
- File:Steven Boyer DirectorFest 2005.jpg
- File:Paul Juhn and James Saito.jpg
- File:Laura Benanti (2010).jpg
- File:Etro 115 (5468858618).jpg
- File:Paul Juhn and James Saito 2.jpg
- File:Patti Lupone Drama League.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ytoyoda (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete With the claim of copyright in the original image. It seems safer to delete unless someone is willing to flickrmail Drama League and find out if they paid the commercial agency and photographers for the photos. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Stated license is not valid - the author is listed as unknown at the source site, meaning this is not a government work. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyrignt violation : https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/1378377399667154948 // https://variety.com/2021/music/news/taylor-swift-fearless-bonus-track-titles-anagrams-1234943302/ Lagribouille (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation : https://www.fr24news.com/fr/a/2021/08/taylor-swift-confirme-le-morceau-de-30-chansons-de-red-taylors-version.html // (c) Taylor Swift Instagram Lagribouille (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Andel as no permission (No permission since) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Tagged author has been dead 70 + years, but author unknown - 1948 is not long enough ago to take this as a given. Needs better sourcing to determine copyright status. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cuneydozen (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of low-quality personal images on a promotional page listed for speedy deletion on Turkish Wikipedia. Unlikely to be own work. Most images can be found on subject's twitter and other web pages. Out of project scope.
- File:Elifgamzebozo-15.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-12.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-20.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-14.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-11.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-10.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-07.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-06.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-05.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-04.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-02.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-01.jpg
- File:Elifgamzebozo-03.jpg
IronGargoyle (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - unlikely to be own works but grabbed from social medias. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Does not appear to be "own work" (see also COM:PACKAGING) Ixfd64 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Eu fiz o carregamento por engano André L P de Souza (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
A logo of Survey of India and the license to use is unknown -- DaxServer (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Would need source/date info to determine actual copyright status; current license claim seems dubious. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above, no improvement. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I am concerned that the image in the logo of a candle is copyrightable Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above (though more specifically the artwork depicts an oil lamp). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Not my own work, copyright violation. Majorsmithers (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- DW, Delete unless original can be shown to be out of copyright. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above, no counterarguments -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Low quality photograph of part of a window. No likely educational use. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep because we don't have a lot of images of Category:Dormer windows (indoors) and because the quality isn't bad at all. IMHO in scope. –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Per the examples of images lacking educational usefulness at COM:SPAM: "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." I think this picture really exemplifies failure of this part of COM:EDUSE. It is noteworthy that this image doesn't show the entire window. If it showed the entire window I might agree with you. IronGargoyle (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept Free licensed image showing mundane but in-scope subject. No problem that requires deletion; regular contributor argues to keep. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
According the Ukrainian copyright law projects of state symbols are copyrighted unless they are officially adopted (article 10 of Copyright Law)
- File:Big emblem of Green Ukraine.svg
- File:Big emblem of Grey Ukraine.svg
- File:Big emblem of Raspberry Ukraine.svg
- File:Big emblem of Yellow Ukraine.svg
- File:Герб Зелёный Клин.png
Anatoliy (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted OOS if fictional; not free licensed if official.-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
According the Ukrainian copyright law projects of state symbols are copyrighted unless they are officially adopted (article 10 of Copyright Law) Anatoliy (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted False license claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by IceWelder as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No COM:FOP in Russia for interiors and artwork. The logo depicted is non-free in its origin country, Switzerland. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio per my original rationale: The Eurovision logo is copyrighted in its origin country, Switzerland, because the state's ultra-low TOO deems any artistic creation with "individual character" to be protected for at least 70 years. This non-free logo is the sole focus of this image, which was captured indoors in Russia. That country has no freedom of panorama for any kind of artwork or text. IceWelder [✉] 07:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @IceWelder: See COM:CSD#F3: FoP issues are exempt from speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: This is a derivative of a non-free work, so F3 should apply. The FOP issue only comes on top of that. IceWelder [✉] 15:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The definition of FoP is the legal right to make derivatives of certain non-free works. So of course the F3 exclusion was meant to apply here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: This is a derivative of a non-free work, so F3 should apply. The FOP issue only comes on top of that. IceWelder [✉] 15:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @IceWelder: See COM:CSD#F3: FoP issues are exempt from speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by IceWelder as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No COM:FOP whatsoever in Ukraine. The logo depicted is non-free in its origin country, Switzerland. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio per my original rationale: The Eurovision logo is copyrighted in its origin country, Switzerland, because the state's ultra-low TOO deems any artistic creation with "individual character" to be protected for at least 70 years. This non-free logo is the sole focus of this image, which was captured outdoors in Ukraine. That country has no freedom of panorama of any kind. IceWelder [✉] 07:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @IceWelder: See COM:CSD#F3: FoP issues are exempt from speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: This is a derivative of a non-free work, so F3 should apply. The FOP issue only comes on top of that. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The definition of FoP is the legal right to make derivatives of certain non-free works. So of course the F3 exclusion was meant to apply here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: This is a derivative of a non-free work, so F3 should apply. The FOP issue only comes on top of that. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @IceWelder: See COM:CSD#F3: FoP issues are exempt from speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete We shouldn't speedy delete any kinds of FOP-related files, don't mean we can't delete, as this image is not (yet?) free in both countries, we have no fair reason to keep it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Likely not own work. TinEye found several instances of its use prior to November 2013, including one at www.chintai-travel.com dated 2012. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Remove authorization to be on Wikimedia Commons Escapement (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Kept: A CC license cannot be revoked. --Jcb (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded from a private collection without permission from copyright holder. Tincash (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Could you clarify that statement, please? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I was wrong and confused at the time, there was/is no public domain for it, sorry. Not my own work, delete.Escapement (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Copyright infringement, please delete this. Tincash (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|Copyright violation}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tincash (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Will you please delete this, it is not public domain and is not my own work. Escapement (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - Given the 2017 request, I see no reason to believe the new statement here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Please delete, this is not my own work and is not public domain. the photo source is from my aunties camera, not mine. Escapement (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Licences are not revokable. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Not my own work, image is copyright of private property, I made a mistake, I am sorry, it is not my own work, are you going to punish those in the photo who have not given any permission because of me. It is private property and not public domain. This not my own work. please delete. Escapement (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept. Repetitive deletion requests by the same user. --BrightRaven (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Questionable copyright status as possibly taken from an eBay listing based on the description. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use and out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 05:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Edmilson pegou Bipolar... vai na Fé boiadeiro -coraçãoNoColorado @srcolorado (33286524350).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photograph of television, copyrighted material unless there is evidence otherwise. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
unused selfie Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
unused selfie Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
self-advertisment Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - also copyvio. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
unused selfie Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Appear to be taken from DWP design - needs OTRS
- File:Bangkok Studio Team.jpg
- File:Western Australia Institute of Sport.jpg
- File:Hanna Neuman Building ANU.jpg
- File:Glowfish Offices by dwp.jpg
- File:Smart Dubai Office.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim. The bar at the bottom of the image indicates that this is a screenshot from an unspecified source. ✗plicit 08:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I, Richard Waller, uploaded this file in error. Brassknocker (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I, Richard Waller, uploaded this file in error. Brassknocker (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
COM:TOYS. ✗plicit 08:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted interface, plus the wallpaper which may not be released under free (commercial) license as mandated on COM:Licensing: files must be free for commercial reuses by all end-users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The focus of this photo is the subject displayed on the monitor, which is an inappropriate derivative work. ✗plicit 08:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Derivative works: the icons are certainly copyrighted under unfree licensing that is not suitable for Commons COM:Licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work: the icons are certainly copyrighted, and some may not be under a free culture (commercial) license that reusers of this file can exploit (even without the permission of the copyright holders of the apps/icons). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mattbr as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 — billinghurst sDrewth 08:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Used by the uploader for their draft article w:en:User:Danblade77/sandbox, which was not accepted as notability was not demonstrated (subsequently deleted). Slightly blurry image with no usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 20:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
1. WTVF/newschannel5.com is a private entity, with its own copyright stated in its terms of use. 2. Nashville Fire Department operates under Nashville metropolitan government, thus also shouldn't be qualifying under {{Pd-usgov}} Robertsky (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
1. WTVF/newschannel5.com is a private entity, with its own copyright stated in its terms of use. Robertsky (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The image has the source as a watermark. We can't know the creator is the same person, possible copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
watermark contradicts "own work" by uploader Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
写真の人物は現在では一般人であり、Wikimediaで扱われるフリーライセンスで提供されるべきではないと考えるため。なお、この写真は同人物のWikipediaページで使用されていたが、同ページは削除が完了した（日本語版のみ）。 SATOH Kiyoshi (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
In English, The person in the photo is now an ordinary person and should not be offered under a free license as handled by Wikimedia. This photo was used on the same person's Wikipedia page, but the page has been deleted. --SATOH Kiyoshi (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Used on Korean Wikipedia. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
No wikipedia page uses this photo. Additional reasons are the same as previous request. SATOH Kiyoshi (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Image in use on Wikidata (I don't know enough to say if appropriately or not) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - in use. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Erreurs evidente sur le document Bedis Ben Amor (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - no evidence that either the text or the photo are freely licensed. Also no evidence that the work is in scope. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Naljasper
[edit]
Photos of a Vietnamese interpreter, initially used to illustrate in the Wikipedia article of this person. However, the community decided that he is not notable enough to appear on Vietnamese Wikipedia. See Article for Deletion. See the archived version of the article before it was deleted. I suggest deleting due to out of scope. --Băng Tỏa (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada#Stamps, so this 2005 stamp (https://archiwum.allegro.pl/oferta/kanada-2005-sc-2125-2127-christmas-i10141958472.html) is not possible to keep on the commons. Even on the enwiki it would need a stand-alone article about the stamp to pass their non-free policy. It is obviously not the "own work" of the uploader as claimed but that of the Canadian Post Office so their licence is also improper. Ww2censor (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep:First of all, the reference above to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada#Stamps states "that there is no special provision for postage stamps." It's wrong because there is a special provision under "Reproduction of Postage Stamps Regulations" on this Canadian goverment website: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1292/page-1.html
- Second: On Wiki itself there are plenty of images of modern Canadian stamps with denomination crossed
- e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II_domestic_rate_stamp_(Canada)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Canada
- Canadian major news agency shows reproductions of modern Canadian stamps, again with denomination striked out. :https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/o-christmas-stamp-from-santa-to-a-huron-madonna-the-story-of-the-christmas-stamp-is-a-story-of-canada
- And third: The image I uploaded is not an exact replication of the original stamp: it has different dimensions, slightly different color and big ink smear which makes this stamp unused. If it was caught during the printing process by Post Office, it would be thrown into the garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanianb (talk • contribs) 12:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see what is the reason to delete image of my stamp as it's no different than the others mentioned above. And please let's use common sense.
- And last: During our conversation with Ww2censor (talk), he used inappropriate language by stating repeatedly that "I'm trying to weasel around my ways" and "wriggle any possible reason". According to Merriam-Wbster dictionanry: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel%20into - "Definition of weasel into
- to get into (a place or situation) by being dishonest , by persuading someone in a clever way, etc."
- Defenition of idiom "wriggle" is "to succeed in achieving some status, condition, or position very narrowly or by sly (dishonest) or clever means.
- I don't appreciate this kind of language. I'm 52 years old professional Canadian citizen holding degree in "Computer Engineering", working as a teacher. Being implied "dishonest" without any proof on public media is unlawful act and I demand that appropriate actions to be taken against this individual who supposed to act on behalf Wikipedia in profesional way. I also expect an apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanianb (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding claiming me that this stamp is "my own work". I don't claim, I'm new here and I mistakenly thought that since it's my own picture and not something I download from internet, it's my work. When I use uploader, I didn't see any other options. Probably I missed it as I already mentioned I have no experience with this yet.
- Anyway, I can reupload my stamp with denomination crossed and option it's not my own work.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanianb (talk • contribs) 11:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Stanianb (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Stanianb's various suggestions, none of which actually resolve the copyright issue, have been answered well on my talk page where he proposed several options. He does not really understand this stamp is copyright to the Canadian Post Office and for that reason we cannot keep it here. His references to other stamps found on enwiki, as linked above, are those used under their strict non-free policy and do not apply to this stamp as also already explained. It is very simple that the stamp has no place here and, as I already suggested to him, if there were an enwiki article about the stamp itself, assuming sufficient notability, them maybe if could be used under their non-free policy. Referencing my criticism of his various solutions, has no place in a deletion discussion and has already been addressed on my talk page where I never called him dishonest as he claims. Ww2censor (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry Ww2censor but I don't trust your expertise neither your professionalism. I want second openion on the matter. And you did implied that I'm dishonest. I don't want to discuss this matter with you anylonger. Let's admins be the judge of this case. I'm sure someone can give me the right solution. You gave me nothing except that it's not possible. Stanianb (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Clearly this is copyrighted by the Canadian Post. The web site cited above gives a permission that is useless for Commons as it allows only an obsolete printing process.
The Canadian stamps cited above are all on Wikipedia, not Commons, under the Wikipedia fair use policy.
Stanianb objects to " there is no special provision for postage stamps". That is correct -- there are no special rules in the Canadian Copyright law. The regulation he cites are non-copyright restrictions, which, as a general rule, we ignore.
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image contains poster likely in copyright in top left. De-minus may be debateable. A cropped image deritive of this image does not have the problem. Was mentioned as borderline example on English Wikipedia Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep As uploader. The poster, bended and seen from the side occupies less then 5% of the image so i dont see how the De minimis can be debatable, when File:GT2 - Flickr - CarSpotter.jpg is shown in Commons:De minimis is shown as an example of being "part of a street-scene" and so De minimis. Also being "mentioned as borderline example on English Wikipedia" is irrelevant, in paricular as there is no link to such discussion. Tm (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Discussion in English Wikipedia is in en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Photos_of_posters_in_Ireland where user Laurel Lodged asked about this image of "Take this photo as an example. Is it de minimis?", to which user Johnbod answered I'd say yes, especially given the oblique angle, but Commons enforcers don't really do de minimis.".
- The only case of this being " mentioned as borderline example on English Wikipedia, besides Laurel Lodged, was by a single user "Djm-leighpark" the same that opened this deletion requests. Only one other user Smirkybec commented that "Comparing those two images doesn't seem to like with like to me. If we take the first example with the political poster within the picture then wouldn't we have to delete any urban street scene that has any advertisement of poster anywhere in shot? That seems to be tipping into the absurd to me."
- So clearly two users in en wikipedia said that this image is clearly De Minimis and only user Laurel Lodged was uncertain and the user that started this deletion request was more to this not being De Minimis with the comment "Probably yes ... but it is in the Posters category which is possible indictor of a problem and the image taker has probably taken care in framing the image to include it and I think it could actually be reasonalby be cropped out. So it possibly might not pass deepest scrutiny. If there was no viable crop which did not affect the quality in terms of the primary subject of the image nor generally the quality of the image or requiring a non-standard aspect ratio then there would essentially be far less of a possible problem. Pointing the poster out in a caption might also be an indicator of an issue. (I only an amateur in these things)", so to the phrase "mentioned as borderline example on English Wikipedia " it should be added the word "I". Tm (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Tm I apologise for grammar, prose, or and apparent attempt to mislead, etc. etc. You've done a number of fine photo's. I was also able to do a cropped version of this one also which doesn't. Its really test case open for debate which to a degree set precedent. I should perhaps have mentioned that earlier. I personally don't think Johnbod was prepared to call it, but I am trying to interpret his motives here. I am specifically asking the question. As it happens I was browsing Laus images this morning .... and came accross this one [:File:Spencer Dock Luas stop.jpg] and my first reaction (I admit stress first and only because that was not the aspect of image I was looking for - actually its a good example of what I'm looking for - but I digress)is that it is reasonable as one can't really get it out of shot without changing the whole character of the shot. Fascinating. I'll ping ww2censor as the uploader of the second and if I recall correctly, and I may not, he is at least a little au fait with the licensing stuff. This has got my brainwheels ticking. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: The poster seems quite de minimis to me and I don't promote deletion for that reason. Cropping to the poster would certainly be a problem. It has nothing to do with the FoP of the image but I have to question what use to we have for the image? It does not show Capel Street because that is hidden by the lamppost and the poster, nor Ormond Quay, essentially just the disused building on the corner, especially in the cropped version. If this is kept I doubt it will ever be used in an article but that's the way with many wikimedia files. There are in fact no modern street views, just buildings, in the Capel Street article. Ww2censor (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: The poster seems quite de minimis to me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: In my opinion the poster is a fairly significant element of the photo (important in framing this photo and eye catching), however the only copyrightable element is the photo within the poster, since the remaining text and graphic design are simple shapes and text, not exceeding the threshold of originality (COM:TOO Ireland). The reproduction of that copyrightable element here is de minimis usage - it could be blurred out with no significant effect on the composition or impact of the overall photo. -M.nelson (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: DM. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Suspected not own work. TinEye found a seemingly-uncropped version at hok.com (image: [4]). Unfortunately, the original image link is now down. But as it seems this upload here is a cropped version, own work status by the uploader becomes doubtful. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.hok.com/uploads/2013/09/23/cedarssinai272.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Suspected not self-photographed image. TinEye detected an old use of this image at http://www.asiarooms.com/malaysia/petaling_jaya.html (image: http://static.laterooms.com/hotelphotos/laterooms/158769/thumbnail/158769_120x105.jpg), dated 2009. On top of that, it also detects a very high resolution version, the link of which is this. The uploader Denzcapili09 (talk · contribs) has uploaded various problematic files, see their talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
TinEye found a use of this at http://hamusoku.com/archives/7667090.html (exact image: https://livedoor.blogimg.jp/hamusoku/imgs/8/0/8040623f.jpg), dated May 2013, about six months before the upload here. The uploader Denzcapili09 (talk · contribs) has also contributed various images of questionable authorship (and in logos, dubious own work claims in sources). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Questionable copyright status with missing permission information. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use and out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 05:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
This logo is no longer in use Alexander Brett (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Paolo.tusa (talk · contribs)
[edit]File EXIF shows "Author Tobias Lackner Copyright holder Tobias Lackner". OTRS permission from Tobias Lackner needed.
MKFI (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged as Speedy Reason being F10. Personal photos by non-contributors This image is a self-promotional selfie uploaded by and promoting the fisherman rather than the European perch fish (Perca fluviatilis). Please remove from Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- File:Selfie baarzen kunnen wel 60 cm worden.jpg
- File:Selfie Peter van der Sluijs ving een baars van 42 cm in een haven.jpg
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
looks like an official press image that can be found quite often on the web – much older publications like http://gazetashqiptare.al/2017/06/19/rama-ne-fier-tallet-me-universitetin-ufo-por-lindita-nikolla-ka-bere-atje-studimet-master/ Albinfo (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anjana.tiha.2018 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no real educational use - blurry photo of a beach with people with blurred faces. Same for File:The tiny ocean - panoramio.jpg Pibwl (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
its my photo Qront (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Unused personal photo. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Old photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyright status.
Estopedist1 (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
_-_12101.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_12101.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Depicted person‘s request Norman.seibert (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate version of File:Analyzing the Pieces of a Warped Galaxy.jpg. Page should be redirected to the other image if deleted. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
unknown source, uploader is a mazum24 sock FleurDeOdile (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whatever the source, this satellite image is from NOAA and NASA which are both copyright free! Pierre cb (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, definitely work of NASA or NOAA, but the uploader is not trustworthy and without source we cannot be sure, that depicted hurricane is Grace. Maybe another hurricane. Taivo (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This very old graph is not in use and is misleading, hence out of scope due to negative educational value. The term "pederastic" is used to describe the historical concept and is not used to in the definition of modern laws in relation to sex or child abuse. Either sex is with consent or not, and as "pederastic" literally means with someone under the age of consent, the diagram is contradictory as to meaning as there is no lawful relationship of this type. Fæ (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete. See the related File talk:European age of male erotic emancipatio.jpg for more details. Zezen (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This old user created map/chart is anti-educational, hence out of scope, as there are no "lawful pederastic relationships in Europe". The word "pederastic" is being misused as it is a historical term, not used in the definition of modern laws about child abuse.
The image is not in use on any articles, but only in use in (dubious educational value) Commons galleries, an old archived user discussion and a user created essay in Dutch which reads as polemical rather than anything useful for policy or to support valid content. None of these uses counts as COM:INUSE and can be safely ignored for this deletion. Fæ (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Image is in use, mostly in Commons gallery pages - in some places it looks inappropriately. I was going to suggest it just be renamed/redescribed as something like "map of age on consent", but the information seems inaccurate - eg Spain is marked as age of consent = 12, whereas a quick web search shows the actual age is 16. (A new map with accurate sourced age information and neutral language might possibly be of some use, but this seems too badly flawed.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and User:Infrogmation — OwenBlacker (talk; please ping me in replies) 21:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete plus a selfquote from its Talk page and Pump, as they take some clicks from this page and thus may be missed:
See discussion Commons:Village pump#Misleading data and maybe more: "male erotic emancipation" (permalink).
I will nominate it for deletion then. Zezen (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
[I misclicked and nominated its talk page only back then]
Zezen (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Misleading and more. See the (perma)links to the Village Pump discussion on its Talk page Zezen (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- A live link copy here: Commons:Village pump#Misleading data and maybe more: "male erotic emancipation" Zezen (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ignore: Talk, duplicate of the file itself, below. Zezen (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 13:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Misleading and more. See the (perma)links to the Village Pump discussion on its Talk page Zezen (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Ignore: Talk, duplicate of the file itself, below. Zezen (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 13:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Files uploaded by GNKdiego13 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images of sports teams logos unlikely to be own work. All are too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. There are also images of recent currency and text which are derivative works unlikely to be in the public domain.
- File:FC Flora.png
- File:FC Vaduz.png
- File:Breiðablik UBK.png
- File:KÍ Klaksvík.png
- File:Rigas FS .jpg
- File:Riga FC .jpg
- File:FK Shakhtar Donetsk .png
- File:FK Akademija Pandev .jpg
- File:FC Aktobe.jpg
- File:Microrrelato.jpg
- File:Billete de Cien.jpg
- File:Veinte Mil.jpg
- File:Billete COP 5000.jpg
- File:COP.jpg
- File:Microrrelato.png
- File:Escudo de armas de Cisjordania.jpg
- File:Flag of Cisjordania.png
IronGargoyle (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Adding the following images to this deletion request:
- IronGargoyle (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Most deleted per nomination. File:Flag of Cisjordania.png deleted for being duplicate of other files already uploaded (flag of Palestine). File:Microrrelato.png deleted for unclear scope. File:KÍ Klaksvík.png kept for being deemed below COM:TOO. File:COP.jpg kept for looking like it might be too simple as well. Please nominate each of these individually if you disagree. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Drama League Awards
[edit]Not the work of the Drama League. Two of the photographs are sourced to FilmMagic, a commercial agency, the other three to a third-party photographer. Appears to be unintentional, good-faith COM:FLICKRWASH,
- File:Bernadette Peters Ebersole Langella Cerveris Peters Pierce.jpg
- File:Drama League 2010 Bebe Neuwirth (cropped).jpg
- File:Drama League 2010 Grammer Neuwirth.jpg
- File:Michael Cerveris 2007.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
And one more from the Drama League Flickr account:
Ytoyoda (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Instead of deleting all the files could we not just change the authorship? If I am understanding the issue correctly they are attributed to the wrong people, so instead of deleting couldn't we just change the information so it does not list the Drama League as the authors? -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kingstoken: That would assume the photographers agreed to the Creative Commons license. It would be extremely unusual for a commercial agency like FIlmMagic to allow images to be distributed with a Creative Commons license, and the Flickr description for the Bebe Neuwirth image and Kelly AuCoin image both include "©" in the credit in the Flickr description, contradicting the CC license. They shouldn't be kept without OTRS tickets. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete With the claim of copyright in the original image. It seems safer to delete unless someone is willing to flickrmail Drama League and find out if they paid the commercial agency and photographers for the photos. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I meant to roll other images from the Flickr account into this request but I messed up and started a parallel request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "drama league" flickr instead. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/cbc sports youtube
[edit]While the CBC (the Canadian broadcaster) releases content over YouTube with a CC license, it's likely that game footage comes from the international feed, which belongs to the IOC, and not available for free use.
Ytoyoda (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: One of the two videos linked as sources has been made private on YouTube, so can't even make a license review for that one. The other video includes a lot of images used where e.g. Getty Images are the photographer (as it is a news show). Erroing on side of COM:PRP and deleting due to lack of other objections. No objections against COM:UNDEL discussion. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
"Not educationally useful". I uploaded this in 2005, when I was like 15. It serves no real purpose, and falls under the criteria of "Not educationally useful". I also don't really want my name associated with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosheA (talk • contribs)
- The author has every right (attribution and moral) to not have his/her name associated with the file, but the file is in use so is within scope. I'm not sure how we handle this, but presumably we can change the upload to anonymous, and have no attribution (but the authorship is available to admins should anyone ever dispute it). --Tony Wills (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly serves a real purpose and is educationally useful, as it is in use. Author's name may be deleted from image history if they wish, but that is a non-deletion issue. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus and in use Ezarateesteban 18:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I previously requested that this image be deleted because it contains my full name (I uploaded it when I was a minor). The solution was just to remove my name from the file description, which I did; however, my name still shows up on the metadata file history and thus, search results, revealing my personal name. I know that the image is in use, which is why deletion was rejected, so I thus propose that I would like the image deleted, and then I will just reupload it, so that my name is fully erased from it. I have already redownloaded the image, and will rename it with the same file name. Thank you. --MosheA (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment If there's a personal name in anything viewable, I don't see it. Still, I have no objection to removing metadata/history if we still have the useful free-licensed photo. A thought - perhaps go ahead and upload a copy, perhaps as "File:Cow Defecating" (with space) or some other similar but not identical name, and usage can then be switched to that version, after which the old version can be deleted as redundant? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, name is still on the page and will show up in Google. That's also a good idea, although I think I'll upload the new file (whether it uses a space or keeps the old name) not from this Wiki account, but just from an IP, so I'll do it when I'm out of town in a few days. Laissez les bon temps rouler!
- Alternatively, I have no real dog in this fight if someone else wants to upload the file as well. -- MosheA (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Kept: personal info from version history hidden without needing to delete the file. --Pitke (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
License paradox, no longer needed. When this photo was uploaded in 2006, it was useful as a then unique illustration of animal biological function. Uploader requested deletion in 2012, at which time I voted keep as the image was useful. In the 15 years since this was uploaded, Commons has amassed a fair number of images in Category:Cattle defecating - image is still in use, but other images could be substituted. Uploader's user name has been removed from the image, creating a paradox - attribution is specifically called for in the license; yet attribution is impossible. Last year I suggested that the uploader could fix this by changing the license to not require attribution, but that was never done. I find the current inherently contradictory licensing troublesome - I think Commons would be better without this image than keeping it under a bizarre license of attribution simultaneously required and prohibited. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: File is in use on one or more Wikimedia projects in main namespace. First have it be removed from all such articles, since Commons don't make editorial decisions for Wikipedia's, on what they wish to use as illustrations or not. Or nominate for deletion for copyright reasons if applicable. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Pont-passerelle du Mont Saint-Michel - Le Mont-Saint-Michel, France - August 14, 2018 02.jpg
[edit]
No FOP in France GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Even if there is IP for the bridge, I would argue this is de minimis.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: COM:DM, not clearly copyrightable. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Pont-passerelle du Mont Saint-Michel - Le Mont-Saint-Michel, France - August 14, 2018.jpg
[edit]
No FOP in France GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Even if there is IP for the bridge, I would argue this is de minimis.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: COM:DM, not clearly copyrightable. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Pont-passerelle du Mont Saint-Michel - Le Mont-Saint-Michel, France - August 14, 2018 03.jpg
[edit]
No FOP in France GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Even if there is IP for the bridge, this appears to be a clear case of de minimis.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: COM:DM, not clearly copyrightable. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Pont-passerelle du Mont Saint-Michel - Le Mont-Saint-Michel, France - August 14, 2018 01.jpg
[edit]
No FOP in France GiorgioGaleotti (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Even if there is IP for the bridge, I would argue this is de minimis.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: COM:DM, not clearly copyrightable. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coats of arms of Ukraine
[edit]According the Ukrainian copyright law projects of state symbols are copyrighted unless they are officially adopted (article 10 of Copyright Law)
- File:Big coat of arms of Ukraine.svg
- File:Design of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine.gif
- File:Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine (2020).jpg
- File:Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine 2020 -removebg.png
- File:Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine 2020.png
- File:Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine by Ivan Turetskyi (2020).png
- File:Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine by Ivan Turetskyi.png
- File:Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine by Ivan Turetskyi2020.png
- File:Project of the Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine.png
- File:Project of the Large coat of arms of Ukraine by Oleksii Kokhan (1997).jpg
- File:Proposed Greater Coat of Arms of Ukranie (2020).svg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Anatoliy (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and trout - I don’t think heraldry is able to be copyrighted in any country. 2001:569:BF37:5300:B9F4:DDAB:8589:CE2C 02:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MSG17 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Probably not own work, and even if it is, there might be a legal situation with the airport or other parties. Indonesia doesn't seem to have TOO, so it can't fall under it either. Request that the logo be moved to wikipedias which allow non free material before deletion. There is no such thing as "doesn't seem to have TOO", as all countries must have it even if not explicitly stated (for example, the letter "A" in a plain font is not copyrighted anywhere, and thus falls under TOO of every country in the world). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Are you sure? TOO is a very jurisdiction dependent matter (although, I guess all copyright is in a sense), so I wouldn't be too keen on stating that every country has the concept of TOO encased in its copyright law. However, after looking into it, it does seem that the concept is embedded in Indonesian copyright law somewhere ([5], [6] page 243), although the 2014 legislation on WIPO doesn't really drop the word "originality" much, merely mentioning it once as a statistic to be tracked in a copyright management system. Anyway, according to my second document, the 1982 act states "the creator must create something original in the sense that this creation does not constitute an imitation", which apparently represents the "low Anglo-American" (rather curious, as the US has a much higher TOO than the UK (relatively), in line with general trends for civil vs common law countries) standard. In addition, the document follows up with stating that "wallpaper, wrappers, packaging designs and technical drawings" have been all registered as original works of intellectual property by the authorities in this environment. Given all of this, I am rather doubtful that the graphical elements would fall under this standard, although there aren't any details on what material was accepted or any other legal precedent set. But, I'm not a copyright or Indonesian law expert, so there may be other variables at play here which I am not aware of. In any case, I was wrong to suggest that TOO didn't exist in Indonesia, and I apologize. MSG17 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, Anglo-American is actually another name for common law, which as previously mentioned usually entails a low TOO. I as also incorrect in insinuating that the US uses civil law when in fact it used common law. MSG17 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The specific threshold is very jurisdiction-dependent, but some threshold must exist. A plain black-outline circle on a white sheet of paper is not copyrightable in any country. Mickey Mouse is copyrightable in every country (assuming the copyright is not expired). You can transform that circle into Mickey Mouse by gradually making it more and more complex, a la Sorites paradox. At some point it has to give; that point is called the threshold of originality. Now, not all countries have a sufficient body of civil law or case law to determine where that threshold lies, but there must exist some threshold for every country. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, Anglo-American is actually another name for common law, which as previously mentioned usually entails a low TOO. I as also incorrect in insinuating that the US uses civil law when in fact it used common law. MSG17 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:TOO Indonesia, the TOO as described on that page is low. I consider this image above threshold, so it must be deleted, regrettably. --Ellywa (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe I hold copyright. But I believe other A J Cocker files on the same basis at simliar time have been deleted. I actually believe this should stay, but it may not have to it scrutinised. Due to my marked of O'Dea files for deletion I have to re-present this for ethical consistency Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. A link to a permission ticket is included on the file page. --Ellywa (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- + File:(Left) Nun detail on 18 July 1936, from- Nun sor Felisa González (cropped).jpg
- + File:(Right) Nun detail on 18 July 1936, from- Nun sor Felisa González (cropped).jpg
- -Added derivative works -M.nelson (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
_Nun_detail_on_18_July_1936,_from-_Nun_sor_Felisa_Gonz%C3%A1lez_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Nun_detail_on_18_July_1936,_from-_Nun_sor_Felisa_Gonz%C3%A1lez_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No evidence that the listed license applies. The author is unknown so there is no indication the work has entered the public domain. czar 04:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Question do we have any indication of when the photos were first published and if they were credited? If published anonymously around the time of the photo being taken (1936), they would be PD per COM:SPAIN (publish + 70 years). -M.nelson (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No information about publication. The uploader should do the research, per COM:EVID, not the poor admins. --Ellywa (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
OTRS permission needed (IMHO), see other websites, e.g. [7] or the profil picture of the official Twitter account [8]. Harold (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1203208205591044096/oQCS3NcO_400x400.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namyohorengekyo1111 (talk • contribs)
- pido disculpas por mi inexperiencia. ya he puesto origen y nombre en la imagen. aqui tambien firmare. gracias por la paciencia --Namyohorengekyo1111 (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete COM:NETCOPYVIO; not the uploader's own work. -M.nelson (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This image will shortly be replaced across Burst Radio by a new logo Alexander Brett (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unrelated to the nomination - exceeds COM:TOO UK. Claim of own work is doubtful. -M.nelson (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per remark. --Ellywa (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Files of User:Nevoamrani
[edit]
Uploader suggests they are the person in the photos, need credit to the photographers and permission to license their photos. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Seem to be professional photos; unlikely to be the uploader's own work. Need permission from photographer(s) via COM:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Added and deleted cropped version, which was not included in the DR. Ellywa (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hate to do this, but it looks like this is derivative of copyrighted work (the painting/sculpture of salmon) and Freedom of Panorama in the United States doesn't apply to artworks, just buildings. Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination - the artwork itself is copyrighted by its artist, and we would need their permission for this photo, per COM:FOP USA. -M.nelson (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Wrong information: Sweden shown as Prostitution illegale, while actually nordic model: sale legal, buying illegal. also png instead of svg. unused, small size, bad color scheme C.Suthorn (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and redundant with File:Prostitution in Europe.svg. No possible educational purpose to keeping this inaccurate map. -M.nelson (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Without additional information about the source of the information and the definitions used, this map is of no educational use and therefore out of COM:SCOPE, it is not used on the projects and can therefore be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Albinfo as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Flag of Albania.svg|File:Flag of Albania.png also exists
Converted to regular DR, as per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- These are using different colours, which might make a preference for one or the other. Weak keep since not exact duplicates, though the Wikipedia articles should probably be using the vector versions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as 1234qwer (etc) states, this has different colors. It is also used on a project page today, so I decided to keep the image. --Ellywa (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
There seems to have been an error when creating this file - there's no video or useful audio Nikki (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nikki: thank you, you are right. It was created during a test and I only kept it as a proof of a bug from Lingua Libre. I think it is better to delete it now. — WikiLucas (🖋️) 18:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; not in use. --Ellywa (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
artist deceased in 1966 Havang(nl) (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
-2021-08-23T16:20:00.000Z-File:Dessin_de_Germain_Delatousche.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nomination. The illustration is not yet in PD (70 years pma per COM:FRANCE). -M.nelson (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Artist died in 1966, see fr:Germain Delatousche. The image will be in PD 71 years after this year and can be undeleted in 2037. Can be undeleted earlier if permission for publication with a free licence is obtained from the heirs per VRT. --Ellywa (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No proper licence from PETER JAMMERNEGG Bahnmoeller (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nomination - EXIF credits PETER JAMMERNEGG which puts own work in doubt; need permission from them via COM:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark. --Ellywa (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Sourced to a freelance photographer who is not an employee of a federal agency. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination - photographer is not an employee of the federal government therefore not automatically in PD per COM:USA#Works by the US Government. -M.nelson (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark. --Ellywa (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lord Belbury as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Complex company logo artwork, not own work. It's a close call on COM:TOO, better to discuss. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looking to see if this has been discussed and deleted before (I can't see that it has), there are also two other uncredited "own work of uploader" TripAdvisor logos on Commons at File:Tripadvisor Logo stacked.svg and File:Tripadvisor Logo circle-green vertical-lockup registered RGB.svg, although these are both simpler designs than the three-colour one above. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, imho above TOO. --Ellywa (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no permission (No permission since). Can someone identify the date of this image? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is what i found about it: The artwork was made by J. Rigo, Lebref, et Cie.[1]. J. Rigo (Jules Alfred Vincent Rigo) worked between 1839 and 1847, and worked with Lebref between 1842 and 1846,[2] when they made illustrations for newspapers (which is where the artwork originates from), which puts the artwork well above 70 years old, which is the length of copyright under French law. Rigo died in 1892[3]. Thus the artwork was made between 1842 and 1846, and the author of the artwork died in 1892.Whatever748 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Whatever748 above, author dying in 1892 meets {{PD-France}}/{{PD-Old}}. -M.nelson (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Info added on file page. --Ellywa (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jaysgolden (talk · contribs)
[edit]Metadata and composition suggests that the photographer is not the subject/uploader and that the copyright belongs to Syracuse University and is thus not own work.
IronGargoyle (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Doubtful own work; need permission from the photographer through COM:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, one of the images showed the name of the photographer, Stephen Sartori. --Ellywa (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sturm as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:TOO Brazil. The threshold is fairly low and I consider this logo above threshold. It has therefore to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stefan2 as no permission (No permission since). The Youtube video is licensed under CC-BY. However, we should discuss if there is COM:LL going on. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I must have overlooked the CC-BY on Youtube. Note that Commons lists a different Creative Commons licence than the one on Youtube. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with the nominator that it's likely COM:LL. The video seems to be from the show en:Super Singer (Tamil reality show), of which the Youtube channel is not an official broadcaster. -M.nelson (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. In addition. all master videos listed on the youtube version are now deleted from youtube. Rationale per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since). I could not find any reverse image results, needs discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- All uploads by user seems to be promo photos. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP . Uploader did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright situation of these images. --Ellywa (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
That flower/sun image is definitively not simple Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any grade of complex, IMO Fma12 (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Fma12: The yellow artwork on the top of "b" is also not complex? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete In contradiction to Fma12 above, I'm afraid that that artwork is enough beyond COM:TOO US. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. The artwork has complex coloring therefore I consider it to be above threshold, per COM:TOO US and the image has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- File:Northern Alliance flag flown in Panjshir 2021.svg
- File:Northern Alliance flag flown in Panjshir (2021).png
.png){kind=link}
Misinformation; the only source for this flag allegedly being used in 2021 is a photograph from 2019 which has resurfaced on social media. See this talk section. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
"Misinformation" Ok then, Here's sources of the tricolor/variants being used along with the 1992-2001 flag https://img.republicworld.com/republic-prod/stories/images/1629718260612386f4c7ed9.jpeg https://www.arabnews.com/sites/default/files/styles/n_670_395/public/2021/08/23/2776346-186172510.jpg?itok=qIBBrkjq https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/panjshir-will-resist-what-massoud-s-national-resistance-front-wants-from-taliban-101629636421158.html --BlinxTheKitty (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- The colors are hard to make out in the first image, but none of the flags in that image appear to match the file I am nominating for deletion. The latter two images are of a vertical tricolor, not a horizontal one like the one nominated for deletion, and are also addressed on the relevant talk section. There does not appear to be a reliable source for the "File:Northern Alliance flag flown in Panjshir 2021" flag, as its origin is this photograph from years ago which some online, myself included, mistakenly believed was from 2021. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
if it's such a huge problem then maybe ask someone to make it a matching tricolor, it's likely that the vertical tricolors are literally poorly made flags as I seen even the Islamic Republics flag in a vertical flag form as well, it's just instable vexillology due to the political climate of Afghanistan, again I seen, anyways take this image as another source https://www.tpi.it/app/uploads/2021/08/resistenza-talebani-panjshir.png --BlinxTheKitty (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- I certainly don't intend to request that an editor creates a vertical version, as it would be original research to assume that the vertical version is the primary version, just as it would be guesswork to assume that it's just a poorly made incorrect one. I appreciate the image you just linked, as it's the first time I've seen someone link to a 2021 photograph from a secondary source which actually depicts a horizontal tricolor, so perhaps the file uploaded could have some educational use after all. I'd still advise against putting any version of the turquoise-white-black banner on Wikipedia in Panjshir related articles until more time passes and we have enough information to conclude which version is the most commonly used (between the horizontal version in that photo, the vertical version in the other photos, and the former Islamic State of Afghanistan flag with a seal), as all we have to work with right now is a random assortment of photos from sources of varying reliability. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Vanilla Wizard I wasn't aware of the facebook post when I created the png, I've G7 speedy deleted it so it can get deleted as fast as possible. Flalf (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: absolutely not misinformation ... @Vanilla Wizard: Just such a tricolour is pictured on the BBC News website's article of 23rd August ("Anti-Taliban resistance group says it has thousands of fighters") being held up by men of the "National Resistance Front of Afghanistan". Granted, the flag in that image has some additional details, but the basic design of a green-white-and-red horizontal-banded tricolour does indeed appear to be in use in Panjshir in 2021. The same photograph appears on Voice of America article of the same date ""Taliban Targets Panjshir Valley as Resistance Leaders Remain Defiant"); Voice of America caption suggests it was taken the day before, 22 August 2021. There is no reason to specify a year in the file name, which should be changed; this is just the same flag design as this faction has always used: here is another Reuters photograph from 2019, and another from the New York Times in 2020: in both, a mixture of vertical and horizontal tricolours can be seen, with and without the central gold device. Unless it is a duplicate, this file should be kept; it is quite untrue to claim that this is derived from a Facebook post. The same tricolour, with different gold device, was in use one of the more recent times Kabul fell: see this Getty Images photograph dated 28 April, 1992. This image is also floating about, though I can't determine if its use illustrating articles of news in recent days is anachronistic or not. GPinkerton (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/D4P63M3EXNPJJD3CATCPWPR5Q4.jpg){kind=link}
- The flag can most clearly be seen in this video filmed in Panjshir on 17 August 2021. GPinkerton (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- With all due respect, that is not the flag I'm nominating for deletion. The BBC article you linked me to is File:Flag of Afghanistan (1992–2001).svg. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Vanilla Wizard No, actually the design of the central gold device is quite different to File:Flag of Afghanistan (1992–2001).svg, as can be seen by looking at the Reuters/BBC/VoA photograph. Look how much larger and straighter the swords are! By looking at the photographs and videos in the other links I supplied, the plain tricolour exactly matching the one you have nominated for deletion can plainly be seen. GPinkerton (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's also visible here in a photo from 2018. The flag clearly exists! GPinkerton (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- And yet another video from this month GPinkerton (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know that the image is clear enough to describe the intricacies of the seal and how they differ from the 1992 flag, but either way, if it has a seal then it's just not what I'm proposing to delete. With all due respect, none of what you've linked me to is the flag I'm proposing to delete. In that Twitter photo, nearly every single flag they're waving is a black-white-green banner, not a green-white-black one. In that Twitter video you linked me to (and we really shouldn't be citing primary sources from user generated content, but I digress), we can also see that the largest flags are black-white-green, and then there's a few vertical variations, and just one green-white-black tricolor. The flag should reflect reality, and there's no reason to believe that a horizontal tricolor of green white and black is the most commonly used flag used in Panjshir, far from it. It certainly has no place in the article. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- What article are you talking about? Who is saying anything about a most commonly used flag? (Other flags are clearly more common, not least the vertical striped one.) Why shouldn't we be citing primary sources? How do you think images are made? Remember which website this is. GPinkerton (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can't say that I understand what that reply means, but it should be self-explanatory why we cite reliable, secondary sources. Nearly all "sources" so far have been random Twitter users or otherwise UGC. That's how we ended up with this image file in the first place: because people saw social media posts claiming that a photograph from years ago was actually a "Northern Alliance flag flown in Panjshir [in] 2021". We need a reliable source that this image file is what it claims to be, otherwise it lacks educational value and cannot realistically be used for any purpose beyond spreading misinformation. A random social media post isn't reliable. A photograph from social media doesn't demonstrate that it's either a) from 2021 or b) from Panjshir. At best, if we were to count all the "sources" that have been provided so far, both the reliable secondary ones and the unreliable UGC ones, this image file depicts one of the least commonly used variations of the tricolor being waved by the 2021 Northern Alliance, and as such, it still has no realistic use on the encyclopedia. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Vanilla Wizard: I think you are confused. This is not Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that was necessary to state. It's still a requirement that flags have some realistic, educational use on the encyclopedia. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Correct. As this flag has undoubtedly been used for years in real life, the image of it here is well within COM:SCOPE with a realistic educational use. Arguing otherwise would be tendentious, I'm sure you'll agree. GPinkerton (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This deletion request is complete nonsense. Wikimedia is a repository for files and not a Wikipedia article. Here it does not depend on descriptions but on designed works. The only criterion for deletion requests at Wikimedia are copyright violations, nothing else.--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 01:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
This isn't even close to true. If it was, Commons:Deletion policy would only need to be a single bullet point. Files without any realistic educational use meet the deletion criteria, as do duplicitous lower-quality versions of the same files (such as the png version). Vanilla Wizard (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)The only criterion for deletion requests at Wikimedia are copyright violations, nothing else
- Correct. As this flag has undoubtedly been used for years in real life, the image of it here is well within COM:SCOPE with a realistic educational use. Arguing otherwise would be tendentious, I'm sure you'll agree. GPinkerton (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that was necessary to state. It's still a requirement that flags have some realistic, educational use on the encyclopedia. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Vanilla Wizard: I think you are confused. This is not Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can't say that I understand what that reply means, but it should be self-explanatory why we cite reliable, secondary sources. Nearly all "sources" so far have been random Twitter users or otherwise UGC. That's how we ended up with this image file in the first place: because people saw social media posts claiming that a photograph from years ago was actually a "Northern Alliance flag flown in Panjshir [in] 2021". We need a reliable source that this image file is what it claims to be, otherwise it lacks educational value and cannot realistically be used for any purpose beyond spreading misinformation. A random social media post isn't reliable. A photograph from social media doesn't demonstrate that it's either a) from 2021 or b) from Panjshir. At best, if we were to count all the "sources" that have been provided so far, both the reliable secondary ones and the unreliable UGC ones, this image file depicts one of the least commonly used variations of the tricolor being waved by the 2021 Northern Alliance, and as such, it still has no realistic use on the encyclopedia. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- What article are you talking about? Who is saying anything about a most commonly used flag? (Other flags are clearly more common, not least the vertical striped one.) Why shouldn't we be citing primary sources? How do you think images are made? Remember which website this is. GPinkerton (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know that the image is clear enough to describe the intricacies of the seal and how they differ from the 1992 flag, but either way, if it has a seal then it's just not what I'm proposing to delete. With all due respect, none of what you've linked me to is the flag I'm proposing to delete. In that Twitter photo, nearly every single flag they're waving is a black-white-green banner, not a green-white-black one. In that Twitter video you linked me to (and we really shouldn't be citing primary sources from user generated content, but I digress), we can also see that the largest flags are black-white-green, and then there's a few vertical variations, and just one green-white-black tricolor. The flag should reflect reality, and there's no reason to believe that a horizontal tricolor of green white and black is the most commonly used flag used in Panjshir, far from it. It certainly has no place in the article. Vanilla Wizard (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Keep I have renamed the file to correct the errors. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion of these images. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral image is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. The images are all in use on the projects, so they have to be maintained. --Ellywa (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This is correctly licensed Creative Commons Attribution on YouTube, so it was a fair upload; however, the YouTube channel is BF Distribution. From its about page, https://www.youtube.com/c/BFDistributionCine/about and its web page, https://www.bfdistribution.cl/ it seems to be a movie distribution company in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. 3 Idiotas is a Mexican film, from our EN article on it made by half a dozen different companies, but none of them seem to be BF Distribution. I don't think BF Distribution owns the copyright to it, so can't release it. They probably have the right to show the trailer, but I don't think they have the right to release it so the world can reuse and edit it, which is what we need.
If I'm wrong, I'll be all too happy. GRuban (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep.Bradford (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Bradford: - er ... why? Again, if you can provide evidence or even a good argument that this is a free image, I'll be very happy, but I explained above why I don't think it is. --GRuban (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The opening and closing parts of the video are clearly from the person who owns the channel, but the middle of the video incorporates an interview conducted institutionally on Netflix. Although the owner of the channel is the interviewer herself, there are no elements that denote authorization from Netflix, specially under Creative Commons. Albertoleoncio (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep The channel owner is the interviewer, she is the content creator, the video rights belong to her. She chose to publish under Creative Commons license. There is nothing wrong with the license. Minerva97 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, we would need evidence showing the presenter has optained permission of Netflix to publish the content with the youtube version of CC-BY-SA. --Ellywa (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
These files were initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). This is technically correct but do these images fall under {{PD-GreekGov}}? [24Cr][talk] 22:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The question in the remark is not answered, so we have to delete the image. --Ellywa (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)