Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/10/31

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive October 31st, 2021
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by GeorgHH as no permission (No permission since) Yann (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May be {{PD-textlogo}}, but uploaded as advertismeent, not used. Yann (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Works by a non-notable artist: out of COM:SCOPE

Ankry (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep These are competent non-blurry watercolor artworks that depict natural settings, and have possible educational uses (including watercolor technique) which are within the scope of Commons. The database is valuable to the worldwide community because its collection is extensive and comprehensive; these images add to this. As a Wikipedian with 10+ years experience, I have often hunted for images for articles but didn't find what I needed. Tomorrow another Wikipedian could be looking for a farmhouse or seascape or tree-lined pathway and one of these images may meet their needs. There is neither a pecuniary agenda since these images are donated as public domain, and no promotional agenda since their creation was done for enjoyment and not for commercial purposes. In short, keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Promotion and autopromotion of unknown artists is not Wikimedia Commons role. I found no evidence of any published critic article about this artist, nor any evidence of their art exhibitions. If the images are used in Wikipedia or another Wikimedia projects to illustrate something, they are in scope But only those which are used. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. These images are not promotional; rather they are the work of an amateur hobbyist with no plans of becoming a commercial artist. The titles have been requested to be changed to sound less promotional.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The subjets of this content seem within scope, had a camera been used these would almost certainly be in scope, I don't see why there should be a problem that they are watercolours Oxyman (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unknown artist and unused images. Wikipedia is not an art gallery. Pierre cb (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: what Commons policy prohibits artwork from unknown artists?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Another question: what Commons policy says that artwork must be used now to avoid being deleted?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Comment: I don't see anywhere in Commons policy where it says "not an art gallery".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia might not be an art gallery, but it ain't Commons either. DMBFFF (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It has been the practice for many years to delete personal artwork. Scope gives example "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills" Keyword is OBVIOUS. I do not see a compelling argument to exclude these images as being exceptional to the criteria, especially not the whole set. The part of the explanation by the uploader does not hold as none of the described techniques are not described in the images and there is no clear authority by artist.

    To the comment about the equivalent photos could be within scope is true, but these are not the photographs, they are an artist's rendition. We have also deleted photographs that uploaders have said are within scope, so that is not a valid argument to retain.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see numerous obvious educational uses: to teach about London, how to draw a farm house or flowers or streams or other landscapes, to teach in biology how a monarch butterfly derives nourishment by sipping nectar. An art teacher could use one to illustrate how to depict a stream. To presume that there are no possible educational uses seems to render a premature judgment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC) I realize people are itching to delete these images, but before proceeding, perhaps consider the repercussions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep FWIW—being neither artist nor high-ranking Commonist——IMO these paintings might be of a particular style—impressionist? expressionist? Group-of-7 fan?—I don't know, again I'm not a painter. However, if they can be slotted into the appropriate categories of style, or other things relevant, they might be a lot more useful to those interested in using such for educational uses about such styles. Moreover, a lot of paintings in Commons is old stuff—the copyright laws, while stupid (i.e. too restrictive, IMO), nonetheless allow us to avail of the wealth of antiquity; still it's nice to see modern stuff being uploaded to Commons that while aren't masterpieces, aren't garbage either. (That said, maybe User:Tomwsulcer might do what I did and set up his own wiki. :D)
    DMBFFF (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We traditionally offer a certain degree of latitude to contributors to put their personal works on the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, as part of their overall contributions. For example a page or two of biographical notes, some personal photos for their user page, even some humorous essays are pretty standard. These are only 33 images, when the contributor has uploaded over 3000 highly valuable files to Commons, we can be pretty sure they are not merely using Wikimedia Commons as their personal art gallery. And note that the Commons absolutely is an art gallery, we have thousands, if not millions, of excellent art images. --GRuban (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --ƏXPLICIT 00:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

I'm not convinced these are actually own work. It seems unlikely that someone would upload their painting/sketch by taking a picture of a computer screen, as is evident in several of these files. Many also show clear signs of digital manipulation, and some look more like the work of an oil painting filter in image editing software than actual oil on canvas. Even if they were actually painted, they are all likely derivative works of non-free images.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete: These images were obviously derived from photographs of unknown origins. It is very unlikely that these photographs were released into the public domain by their owners. I participated in a Discord discussion on this topic. Susmuffin (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite apart from the fact that these are obviously (poorly) doctored images derived from other sources where the copyright status is unknown, the results are just plain awful and would be of absolutely no use to the project even if they were acceptable in other respects. If I was the subject of a BLP article on Wkipedia, and I saw one of these ugly images being used to illustrate me, I'd certainly be thinking "WTF?" --DanielRigal (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are original artworks of notable persons who don't have any other images; so there is an educational purpose for each one. The process is fair -- they spring from images from YouTube videos which are then matted on a screen, so the proportions in the face are exact, painted (oil / watercolor / pastel ), re-photographed and uploaded, meaning that the end result is entirely original. There are no copyright issues here because they are new creations. What I have done is what all artists do -- they take things from real life, and create something new from what they have seen. These particular images are faithful to what the persons look like, in that they faithfully convey their faces and are recognizable. They are not ugly but beautiful. I am in contact with several of the people depicted and I have had no complaints, no "wtf" comments suggested by Mr. Rigal, but instead I got "thank yous". They like these images of themselves. Deleting these images will crimp and narrow the encyclopedia and further push it into obscurity.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see why you might believe that "the end result is entirely original" I think it is pretty clear that this is mistaken. These are processed photographs taken from copyrighted media. The fact that your processing involves some manual work to degrade the image quality is not sufficient to make them entirely original works. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment. I suggest that the community begins thinking about what I consider to be a huge problem with Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. It's that many subjects lack images -- whether people or places or things. I've run into this problem time and again: I've written hundreds of Wikipedia articles on a huge range of subjects, during 13+ years, and when I consult the Commons database, there's nothing there for me. So my Wikipedia articles are blank, boring-looking text. Images make an article look appealing and beautiful and fun to read. So, what is the core of the problem? We rightfully value copyrights and we rightfully assume that everything out there on the web is protected by copyrights, so we can't use it as it is BUT if create something new, similar enough to the original for purposes of recognize-ability, but new and fresh, we can use it. Such a method solves the problem. It doesn't violate copyrights. It communicates what a subject is about. It brings beauty and color to visually-boring pages of text. This method can be used by any of us in our drive to improve the encyclopedia. And I recommend that the community embrace this method.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Blatant Derivative work of non-free content (F3); as some examples:

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope promotional content: images illustrating topics from the uploader's own novel.

Omphalographer (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 13:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Poorly manipulated photos. While the Rockettes did perform at Trump's inauguration, these photos do not truthfully depict that performance.

Omphalographer (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. These are badly manipulated photos of unknown provenance. They are incorrectly tagged as the uploader's own work, which they are not. All he did was combine other people's photos, poorly. Collage can count as original work, if it is sufficiently transformative, but this is nowhere near the point where that could even begin to be argued. Anyway, it is not our job to make Trump look any sillier than he already does in genuine photos. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

User request {{Delete}} User:Mlpearc/Template:Font 05:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Speedy delete per COM:CSD#U1. Brianjd (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Brawlbrawl (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Claimed own work, but low resolution and metadata (or lack of) suggest otherwise. Also they nominated one of their own uploads for being underage, casting doubt on all their other uploads.

Brianjd (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted Inconsistent sizes and styles strongly suggesting not taken by same photographer, many small website resolution, some blurry, and all lacking EXIF - together indicating not uploader's own work. Case closed by the two images where the uploader forgot to crop off the watermark of the porn site they stole them from. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is a fake image made from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Johann_Joachim_Quantz.jpg. Izaya Bendasan (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted scaled down duplicate with false hoax claim text -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation : https://www.fenmusique.be/gallerie Lagribouille (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image Vandalism Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted troll/prank DW -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Pissible copyvio: Usage of the film poster V For Vendetta CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted COM:DW -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website with a Copyright CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted DW, false license -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website with a Copyright CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted DW, false license -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website with a Copyright CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted DW, false license -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

owner revoked pemisison 93.148.96.180 16:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new version of the file, please do not delete it since it is the one i want to be. Thanks and sorry. --Meabunda (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Closed as Kept anon nom claim not supported by uploader-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Fake new 187.254.17.68 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted Malicious prank -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Fake new 187.254.17.68 16:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted Malicious prank -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

erreur de Paul Leroy Moonday (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope for Wikipedia : a diploma from given by an Elementary school to the Mexican Consul? Pierre cb (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This seems to be a complex logo. Yann (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Hello, I've uploaded new version of this logo, without the green leaf which is (I suppose) reason of deletion. I'm sure that now we can safely say that this logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or in this case – text. If you are ok with this correction, please remove delete template from images Commons page. Thanks! – RickRichards (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: OK now. Old version hidden. --Yann (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Selfies by Lucypug, a youtubeuse slovaque, however the photographer is mentioned as Jiří Sedláček aka Frettie.

Yann (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Its not a selfie, its youtuber, which taking selfie. --Frettie (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Frettie: You are not Lucypug, aren't you? Yann (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. But i took photograph, when lucypug take selfie with fan. Where is the problem? --Frettie (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: OK. --Yann (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Completely scrambled metadata - Easier to just start again, unless someone one wants to track down what actually went wrong.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawn - On other files it seems the metadata might actually be using the date of issue of individual papers as opposed to that of the volume. Looks like this needs to be examined in more depth. I'll de-tag for now.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

по просьбе автора KittenBroEeev (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ 20:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unuseful Fragrant Peony (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

A formal PR picture of an Israeli model and the photographer is mentioned in the file's details. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. -- Geagea (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Meep moop boop (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These are the remaining uploads of this user, not already nominated for deletion. These are images of groups of people, whose descriptions appear to be lists of names, uploaded by a minor. This raises personality rights and scope concerns.

Brianjd (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9   15:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

<vorrei eliminare questa foto> Santopennestri4 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. Taivo (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

<vorrei eliminare questa foto> Santopennestri4 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{speedydelete|<vorrei eliminare la foto>}} Santopennestri4 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. Taivo (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope Lotje (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope personal album style snap from a one-upload user. No EXIF and no description verification that the uploader has any rights to this image. Acabashi (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by 2409:4063:6E86:F01E:0:0:1748:6813 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This svg is not a Simple Geometric Shape. Please remove this svg.

Converting to a regular DR: In use since about 10 years. Achim (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Since Nike is a US company, if this image was really first published in 1971 as claimed in the file infobox, we may be able to find evidence that it was originally published without a copyright notice (see {{PD-US-no-notice}}), which would make the TOO argument moot. Brand logos are often not accompanied by a copyright statement, which was required for protection due to the US copyright formalities at the time. See File:Apple logo black.svg for an example. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: COM:TOO. −ebrahimtalk 11:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation AviaWiki (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Doesn't meet COM:TOO. Unnamed UserName me 01:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete purposefully distorted logo used only for vandalism --Nutshinou Talk! 00:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Dubious variation of logo with false claims by blocked apparent troll account. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

reupload of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coca-Cola 2021.svg Nutshinou Talk! 07:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Redeleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Small and pixelated; Category:Butanone has a ton of high-quality alternatives in this and other levels of detail, such as File:Butanone V.1.svg DMacks (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 22:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Hand-drawn with in-image caption, replaced by File:Glycol Cleavage.svg DMacks (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 11:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Egaftrawefewg (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Low quality photo of an unidentified building, used to ilustrate a deleted hoax article [1] about a non existing skyscraper. Nomination includes two deriviarives, where the photo is photoshopped into already existing file.

~Cybularny Speak? 05:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --clpo13(talk) 17:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

presumable copyright problem of displaying modern architecture objects in France Huff1952 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No context whatsoever. More importantly, given the editing history across WMF, the uploader most likely does not the rights to this image. Snackmurat (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per nom and CSD F10 (personal photos of or by non-contributors).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: self promotion, blocked for that in en.wiki, eligible for CSD F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

не соответствует политике размещения на страницах Википедии Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


не соответствует политике размещения на страницах Википедии Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal artwork. --P 1 9 9   00:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

не соответствует политике размещения на страницах Википедии Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


не соответствует политике размещения на страницах Википедии Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal artwork. --P 1 9 9   00:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

macOS Big Sur is copyrighted and cannot be freely used GriffintheFolf (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Yes! this needs to be deleted. I accidentally uploaded the wrong image. The soon its deleted the better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyjam (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. -- Darwin Ahoy! 00:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out Of Scope NairobiPapel(Kamaa) (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This argument has happened dozens if not hundreds of times and is basically a fancier way of saying “I don’t like this because it’s sexual” since human sexuality is definitely in scope. The quality is poor, but the video is the only one on commons specifically depicting gay anal sex (that isn’t a gif anyway), which would mean it can be kept due to lack of better media on the subject. Dronebogus (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per Dronebogus. — Tulsi Bhagat contribs | talk ] 08:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Ikbsdgv as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Vandalism
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion as previous DR as keep-closed. Independent of current and former rationale, I see a potential problem with copyright, as the uploader changed the author-entry at day of upload to "Tran Bao Long", meaning they might not really be the author. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per remark of Turelio and this revision replacing the author. We would need permission of the author. --Ellywa (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Md. Sakib Rahman (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Md. Sakib Rahman (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE personal images.

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Yairkingofasia123 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No encyclopedic use CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Dragonyto (talk · contribs)

[edit]

copied from https://www.youtube.com/user/filmscienceparallele without authorization

Habertix (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

picture of low quality - deletion requested by the uploader Robby (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per COM:CSD#G7. Brianjd (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Tahmidshihab5 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons is not your personal free web host. No contribs to any wm project.

Achim (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Vandalism/attack image Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Vandalism/attack image Dronebogus (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reuploaded file that was deleted due to a CC ND notice located within the file, however this version lacks this notice, so either its been falsified to not include it or the uploader is the copyright holder. Zppix (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Zppix. I am the copyright holder of the file (ebook), so do allow it. Skyfire2021 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:delete2|image=File:At the End It's You Lucifer.pdf|reason=Reuploaded file that was deleted due to a CC ND notice located within the file, however this version lacks this notice, so either its been falsified to not include it or the uploader is the copyright holder.}} ~~~~ Skyfire2021 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

subí una foto por error Berlín84 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per COM:CSD#G7. Brianjd (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright violation, image taken straight from the band's official website https://bowwow-army.jp/ Xfansd (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

user does not own image Snackmurat (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per nom, as a copyvio from the same source as https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/550652337799180289/g3mOPgm-.jpeg , and Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted by Андрей Романенко. --Gbawden (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Guinee Mp3 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Aboubacarkhoraa (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal type images, out of scope - commons is not a photo album

Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep at least those that depict Wikipedia-related events. Although not categorized as such, and perhaps of little use otherwise, they may be of interest to WMF outreach projects, the local chapter, &c.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept most, deleted two, see comments on the individual files. With regard to the small size, low quality and metadata "Google" of many of this user's uploads, I'm of course suspicious, but still want to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that these photos are his own work nevertheless - probably taken with a mobile phone and processed through some Google application. They're topically consistent with a focus on a Wikipedia-related event at the Université Kofi Annan de Guinée where the uploader apparently was a participant. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Aboubacarkhoraa (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Small images, no metadata or FBMD. Unlikely to be own work. Uploader is indef blocked for copyright violations.

Didym (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I kept some of these files in the last deletion request; see my reasoning in the closing statement of 2 April 2018. But if now another admin, given the uploader's history, comes to a different decision, maybe based on COM:PRP, I think that would be acceptable, too; I won't protest. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP (Uploader was blocked three times for uploading unfree content after several warnings). --Wdwd (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Aboubacarkhoraa (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Aboubacarkhoraa (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Series of personalities pictures in low resolution with no EXIF data. Similar images can be found on relevant magazines. Unlikely to be own work.

Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 15:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour @Teles
J'ai remis trois images en forme et les autres progressivement.
Ceux dont j'ai déjà réguler (Kadiatou Kaba 01.jpg, Kadiatou Kaba 03.jpg et Kadiatou Kaba 1.jpg) tu peut peut-être retirer le bandeau. Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, blatant copyvios. --Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Aboubacarkhoraa (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work, probably taken from a video. Uploader already has multiple blocks for uploading copyright violations.

Didym (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unprofessional genitalia pic Adsci8 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Angle is unusual; inclusion of labels is even more unusual. Brianjd (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be a vote to delete? The way I see it, the labels suggest it's intended as a "textbook image," but the pose and angle make it unsuited for educational use (which just so happens to be the purpose of Commons). Adsci8 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adsci8: No, it was a vote to keep. I see that some effort has been made, by different users, to categorise this image, including into Nude women in front-bend. So who am I to argue that the pose and angle make it unsuitable? I will say though, the labels' focus on the anogenital area is perplexing. Brianjd (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the image can be categorized, it doesn't mean it's a quality specimen of those categories. Adsci8 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

low quality, little educational use Adsci8 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination - Out of scope. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year!. --Missvain (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as no permission (No permission since)

@Rodhullandemu and Captain-tucker: Sorry, there was no on-page indication of this being a selfie in the Metadata section, not even in the extended details, and there was no shoulder prominence.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Although free its OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by HNordeen (WMF) (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Photo by Jared Kohler. The pictured person isn't the photographer, so permission is required.

GeorgHHtalk   20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Guglielmo Vacirca (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused, uncategorized, unhelpful description. Seems to be out of scope

Estopedist1 (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by কাপ্তান (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Of course the user is not the author, needs proper permission. User is also blocked

Afifa Afrin (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Educational value is not shown. Taivo (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Gbawden at 15:13, 7 December 2021 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Some babel code.jpg --Krdbot 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded for advertisement, out of scope. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Trauschein.

Yann (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Trauschein (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Uploaded for advertisement, out of scope. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Skischule Reit im Winkl‎.

Yann (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

as per COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope and unused vanity selfie personal album style photo of no educational use Acabashi (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by AnnaStrass (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Old images, wrong license.

Yann (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file may be a copyright violation and, thus, unacceptable for Commons. The United States does not have FoP for works of 2D or 3D art (which is depicted in the image), only buildings. In addition, it is hard to argue de minimis for this image as the file would lose its primary purpose if the art in question (the flags) was cropped out. The original source of the image states, "Today I planted a flag at artist Suzanne Brennan Firstenberg’s 'In America: Remember'..." This clearly shows intent to capture the artwork and, as such, de minimis likely does not apply. If the artwork in question were cropped out, the image would lose its primary value. In addition, COM:TOO is also unlikely to apply, as the artwork appears to be sufficiently original to attract copyright protection in the United States. The artwork depicted will become public domain 70+1 years after the death of the artist, Suzanne Brennan Firstenberg (2092 at the earliest). ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrogmation: Another potential issue that would be good to discuss is the sign in the background. Is the design original enough to warrant copyright protection? --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very much simple text. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Infrogmation. --Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Swarata je ti neco (talk · contribs)

[edit]

personal files; selfie and a made up graph about a made up micronation

TFerenczy (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete experiments, out of scope, no usage. --Gampe (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal essay, plain text, out of scope. Achim (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ärkhézja (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyrighted TV screenshot; properly licensed version uploaded locally on Wikipedia Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: picture from Adobe Stock https://stock.adobe.com/cz/451312639?as_campaign=TinEye&as_content=tineye_match&epi1=451312639&tduid=0dd5195fde4e0794f9ca6fc8c687eb20&as_channel=affiliate&as_campclass=redirect&as_source=arvato CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination and OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors' and architects' copyright. The building was built in 1982. No Permission from the architect uk:Головчак Олег Іванович. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors' and architects' copyright. The building was built in 1982. No Permission from the architect uk:Головчак Олег Іванович. Микола Василечко (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Dubious ownwork Sahaib3005 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn my nomination because the user has said that they are Stewart Stevenson (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZsstevens&type=revision&diff=750474498&oldid=750473135 here). I feel like they could have made it a bit more obvious that they were Stewart Stevenson, because I just thought it was a new editor claiming the image as there own work but I suppose I was wrong. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: This is a professional studio photo, not a selfie and Stevenson is in the photo. No exif. PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused promotional poster, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No sign that this image has been made available under this license. Author appears to be incorrect as well Dajasj (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: Obviously copyright violation. Leonel Sohns 18:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

You can Vote to delete that post as well, that's okay. Since this photo is on the Discord homepage, I don't have any proof to confirm that I own it. TamGamingMC (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Papofobico (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not own works but taken from some magazine. Missing essential info and permission.

P 1 9 9   01:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Simple text, bio of some person. Out of scope of the project. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

A screenshot of some more or less unknown Brazilian youtuber. Does not seem to have educational value. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Not an own work; copy of the photograph of 1960-ies. According to Guatemalan copyright law not free until 75 years after creation, even if anonymous. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Duplicate file of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andy_Murray_and_First_Minister_Alex_Salmond_(7995856240).jpg Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Logo above COM:TOO P 1 9 9   00:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Livingston County route markers

[edit]

Years ago (over 10 years), members of enwiki's w:WP:USRD realized a bunch of county route markers were duplicates and that we could stand to get rid of a few. At the same time, we decided to rename files to a more generic name. That being said, these files are functionally duplicates of File:Livingston County 1.svg through File:Livingston County 36.svg. These files should be deleted and then the file name redirected to File:Livingston County nn.svg. I put them side-by-side on my talk page and they are identical. –Fredddie 08:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: badly cropped logo of a production company, not used on the encyclopedia CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshot of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Fotosdocassio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Likely not own works: 3 different cameras, including credits to Hugo Sampaio. I have not nominated images of Canon EOS 60D with credit in EXIF data to Cassio Moreira who may be User:Fotosdocassio.

P 1 9 9   00:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Better safe than sorry. Per nom. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

User that uploaded it does not own the copyright, I do. File already exists on the wiki in original size. Bellminsterboy (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here: File:St Mary and St Bartholomew, Cranborne, Dorset.jpg. What about the user's other uploads: File:Cerne Abbey image.jpg and File:Sherborne abbey image.jpg? All three seem to be crosswiki uploads for en:List of monasteries dissolved by Henry VIII of England. –LPfi (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes - that's my upload of the original file size; I own the image rights. I cannot speak for the other two images you've mentioned as they're not mine. Please can the Cranborne file, the one he's uploaded, be deleted? Bellminsterboy (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Assuming good faith! Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The original author requested deletion. K.Y.K.Z.K. (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: there is a big reason why this template could warn readers in Korea and China about the symbols as the display of symbols are offensive there. 49.145.227.235 07:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: Uploaded 3 months ago, in use and IMO useful. --Achim (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per the keeps. Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unknown source, copyrighted possibly Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 03:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: If proper sourcing can be provided, we can reconsider. Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation? This poster is from iran, 2017, so I think not in PD yet, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iran and no VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom. Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation? As far as my interpretation of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway is right, FOP Norway only applies to outsides of buildings, not interiors. I guess this building was built in 2019, so the architecture cannot be dead for at least 70 years and I do not see a VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Hmm... my interpretation is a bit different. According to Section 31 of the machine-translated version of Norwegian copyright law as amended in 2018, "buildings can be freely depicted." Unless there is something I am missing (or the machine translation is inaccurate), the law does not appear to differentiate between interiors and exteriors of buildings. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ShyAlpaca482 and JopkeB: I am the photographer and uploader. The Norwegian copyright law, as is pointed out, section 31, specifically says "Byggverk kan fritt avbildes", which can be translated as "Buildings can freely be photographed". Says nothing about inside or outside. Perhaps this photo should have been cropped to avoid the inclusion of the art on the left? Otherwise I did not believe it was a copyright violation. But I may have misunderstood. Cashewnøtt (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: I see nothing in Norwegian copyright law that restricts Freedom of Panorama to building exteriors only. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to delete this file --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cashewnøtt: I did not even notice the art on the left until you pointed it out. I don't see a copyright issue with the building, you should be covered by {{FoP-Norway}} as far as I can tell. The artwork may be acceptable under de minimis (if the copyright has not yet expired on it). I think there is a reasonable argument in favour of the artwork being a non-essential part of the subject. See entry number 4 on COM:DM#Guidelines. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ShyAlpaca482: I have uploaded a cropped version that removes most of the artwork. I believe it is important for the image to show the windows on the left, and what's left of the artwork is a minimal part of the image, in my opinion. Cashewnøtt (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cashewnøtt: I see no problem with the updated version. Cheers! --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: I see no problem with Norwegian Freedom of Panorama. The artwork, if it is copyrighted, is unambiguously acceptable under de minimis exception to copyright in the cropped version. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in Norway for sculptures (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway#Freedom of panorama, sulptor is not dead yet, no VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom - Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in Norway for sculptures (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway#Freedom of panorama, sculpture dates from 2011 (see https://www.kistefosmuseum.no/skulptur/all-of-nature-flows-through-us) so sulptor can not be dead for at least 70 years, no VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom - Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in Norway for sculptures (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway#Freedom of panorama), sulptor Tony Cragg is not dead yet (born in 1949), no VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom - Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Urielzarur (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom - Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I would think this is copyrighted by Microsoft, and it's out of scope —chaetodipus (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment In case this file gets deleted, it depicts a Microsoft Virtual Academy "course completed" certificate for the course "Developing Websites Using Python and Django". It is dated and signed by Kim Akers, the Corporate Vice President of Microsoft Worldwide Learning. It is clearly in scope, assuming there are no similar images already available, but I will leave it to others to discuss the copyright aspects. Brianjd (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom and comments. Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Current licensing is incorrect as the logo would be owned by TNEI Services. Conversion to pd-logo is likely not possible as TNEI is a British based company. A copy on Wikipedia has been uploaded under PD-ineligible-USonly. So in summary this copy should be deleted. Salavat (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom - Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by HelpersSpeakers11 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Historical images/documents. The CC licenses are bogus. Copyright status is unclear.

Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Better to be safe than sorry. Per nom - Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation? The photographer is Peter Schols, see https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20190111_00087711, not the uploader. I see no VRT ticket with permission from Peter Schols.. JopkeB (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Sure looks like a copyvio to me! Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by IMA Dresden (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Disputed authorship: I doubt that the uploader is the photographer or has the right to license the files under Creative Commons. For some, the photographer's name and website are given. Where Unternehmensfotoshooting appears in source field, it means Company photo shoot.

Senator2029 06:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: If COM:OTRS can be provided we can undelete. Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Similar to uploader's other uploads (except for being a video, rather than a photo). The other uploads were nominated for deletion as suspected copyvios. Brianjd (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file is supposed to be a cropped version of a publicity photo taken by a professional photographer. Look at the left side of the photo. 61.120.241.72 08:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Appears to be a copyvio. Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possibly an unauthorized private photo. The contributor may not be aware of copyright and uploading rules. One other file by this contributor is likely to be copyright infringement. 61.120.241.72 08:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep Substantially different from the other upload by this user. High resolution and includes metadata. No valid hits on TinEye. Appears to be the only image captured from this angle, so possibly useful. Brianjd (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons is not a place for tourist photos. Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Weiss, F. E. (Frederick Ernest), 1865-1953 was a British academic, and this appears to have originally been a work published in the UK. This is not necessarily PD in the UK in respect of his contribution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: Per keep - Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Duplicate file Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaib3005 - Please link us to a copy of the duplicate so we can consider this nomination. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missvain, it used to link to the duplicate file but now it is gone for some reason. The duplicate file is File:Andy Murray and First Minister Alex Salmond (7995856240).jpg. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: They aren't duplicates, the cropping is different. Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Apparently an attempt at an English spelling pronunciation by a German speaker. It's neither English nor German, which it should be. Espoo (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File is re-recorded according to IPA in Krech, Stock, Hirschfeld, Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch, 2009, page 290: ˈeːkɐ. File is used on German Wiktionary. Kind regards --Jeuwre (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks! --Espoo (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn. --Missvain (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Cropped postal covers is not in PD — Redboston 09:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

A 1966-1968 publication would have automatically had it's copyright renewed. However, I can't find the listed publisher listed in the CCE claimant index for Periodicals in 1966. Was this ever actually published in compliance with the relevant requirements?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • The PDF will need to deleted or modified, as the last four issues (and those issues only) had copyright notices attached. The images here nominated was from an earlier issue, and is copyright-free. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Cropped postal covers is not in PD — Redboston 09:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Unfortunately! Per nom - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Erronous publication date. Volume post-dates 1964, and thus would have been renewed automatically. Images also nominated as most likely being from the volume concerned

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Image is from nominated volume. The volume does not appear to have a copyright notice, and the articles also do not appear (on a preliminary appraisal) to have copyright notices either, making these files PD-US-no notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per contesting keep - Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Erronous publication date. Volume post-dates 1964, and thus would have been renewed automatically. Images also nominated as most likely being from the volume concerned

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: Per keep - Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Only used in a promotional article, should be SVG if useful. Yann (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Tbhotch as no permission (No permission since) Is this above US threshold of originality? Yann (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Fails COM:TOO - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Contractor report by "Science Applications International Corporation", 1990 publication date. As contractors are not necessarily 'Federal' employees, a PD US Gov license is queried.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. This seems to be PD-USGov. Federal agencies can choose to direct their own employees to make reports, or may contract that work out to private agencies. Where that is the case, those contracted works are PD-USGov, as is the case here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Keeping per keep comment. And pulling from personal experience - decades of being a federal contractor and working for a firm that does so as well, all of our work we end up submitting to the feds becomes public domain (even grants we write for federal money). Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Contractor report by "Science Applications International Corporation", 1995 publication. As contractors are not "Federal" employees, a PD US Gov licence may not be applicable.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. This appears to me to be a clear-cut case of PD-USGov. The agency at hand chose to contract work to a private party, but had the (theoretical) capability to pay its own employees to perform the study. (The standard has some wording similar to that.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Keeping per keep comment. And pulling from personal experience - decades of being a federal contractor and working for a firm that does so as well, all of our work we end up submitting to the feds becomes public domain (even grants we write for federal money). Thank you for respecting this good faith closure. If one wishes to renominate this report with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Courtesy deletion request. I'm the photographer and the uploader of the file this has been extracted from. This file is not used anywhere, and the person in the picture has asked if it can be deleted. I've talked to Rosiestep who extracted it and neither she nor I have anything against the deletion request. The file is not and has not been used anywhere. Julle (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with and support the comment made by Julle. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Courtesy deletion. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Illustrator is Lucy Kemp-Welch (1869–1958), So this is not necessarily out of copyright in the UK, where this edition was first published.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Per nom - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyvio, artist died in 1988. Martin Sg. (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Sg.: Conregnator (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC) I do not understand this deletion request, this is a Photograph I made myself of an artwork from whose owner I have the explicit consent of publishing this file to Wikipedia.--Conregnator (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the owner holds the rights on the artwork, permission has to be given as described here: Commons:Volunteer Response Team. --Martin Sg. (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No COM:VRT has been sent in and the file isn't in use. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by TFerenczy as Logo Yann (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Sadly in use, but appears to fail COM:TOO. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyvio: ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copyvio - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is blurry Mister rf (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: We have plenty of other photographs of a bottom of this transisteor, including those that can be cropped. The quality of this one is painful. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I think this template is unnecessary. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep I think it could be useful, but the standard delete nom. has taken over. A09090091 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So  I withdraw my nomination.Ox1997cow (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by the nominator himself (non-admin closure)Ox1997cow (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

If a logo is believed to be above TOO in its source country, then it should be nominated for deletion. This nonstandard problem tag serves no purpose at all. pandakekok9 14:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete As a guide, I started looking at the other TOO templates. From {{TOO-Malaysia}}:
The implications of these situations on Commons' ability to continue to distribute this and other depictions like it are currently under analysis.
Really? What analysis? Where? COM:CRT/Malaysia#Threshold of originality is of little help. And as the nominator suggested, why not just nominate these files for deletion?
Then there is this gem from {{Not-free-US-TOO}}:
This policy may change in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions and new case law.
Note the broken link.
Maybe not just this template, but that entire category needs to go. Brianjd (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pandakekok9 and Brianjd:  Comment TOO templates and NoTOO templates were made by me and Chubit. So I ping @Chubit: . Ox1997cow (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all - agree with the nominator that if a file is believed to be copyrighted, it should be nominated for deletion. I can't think of a valid reason to tag (potentially) copyrighted works without nominating them for deletion. -M.nelson (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • if a file is believed to be copyrighted AND it is not available under free license then it should be nominated for deletion. If it is available under free license then stamping this template does not help. In which case it would be useful? Though template for works on edge of TOO, warning that court decision may be different from analysis of Wikimedia Commons users may be useful. But "The work in this image is believed to be copyrighted" is a different case. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "If a logo is believed to be above TOO in its source country, then it should be nominated for deletion" is not true. Image may be also freely licensed by author or as a matter of law and in such cases should not be nominated for deletion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but then why would it need this template? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am supporting deletion of this template, this comment was directed to people/person that created it. Maybe they intended something like this? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This template does seem rather odd, much too large, and overly alarming text. If something is over the threshold, like most works, it needs to be licensed or deleted. I don't see the need for this template on any work. If something is below the threshold, the corresponding license tag should probably explain the situation and uncertainty across countries. But you wouldn't put a statement "we believe this is protected by copyright" on an "ineligible for copyright" license image. So not sure what this template is used for. It looks like it was supposed to be a parallel to (and mostly a copy of) {{FoP}}, but it's not really a valid parallel, FoP is for a situation where there is a copyrighted subject, but a licensed photo and where the usage of that copyrighted work is allowed. But for threshold, that is a delete-or-not question -- and if licensed, it's presumably above the threshold (or at least we don't care). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Not-free-US-TOO. Brianjd (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Template:TOO and Template:Not-free-US-TOO and  Keep other TOO templates and NoTOO templates. These templates are useful for showing the status of threshold of originality in countries. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I ping @Chubit: . Ox1997cow (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Going with the deletes here. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Suspicious copyright Maometto97 (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copyvio - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Майк Гроуз (talk · contribs)

[edit]

This gallery appears to be published album covers and photograph too small and low quality to be own work of uploader.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Майк Гроуз (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not own work

--NoFrost (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copyvio - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Sima Sam (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Potential copyvio. Low resolution and without Exifdata. Uploader has uploaded files that lack of source before.

SCP-2000 14:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Copyvio - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The flag of the Soviet Union was (officially though not always followed) blank on its reverse side, but to my knowledge that is not the case for the flag of the People's Republic of China. Fry1989 eh? 15:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Indeed true - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploads by Lolipopsignmen

[edit]

Unsourced uploads by a brand new account. Likely a further sock of the Jermboy27 account that is currently under investigation. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Deleted: Copyvio Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

l'artiste n'est pas dans le domaine pulic Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Je présume que les autre photos de peintures sont problématiques aussi:
Et deux photos, à discuter ailleurs:
Two more paintings by the same painter, born 1934, so not PD. I also doubt that the two photos are own work.
LPfi (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per non - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I by mistake assumed it is from old magazine. It is in fact from newer source, i.e., public domain invalid Loew Galitz (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused file, redundant to File:Coat of arms of Romania (1948–1952).svg ColorfulSmoke (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per non - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused file, redundant to File:Coat of arms of Romania (1965–1989).svg ColorfulSmoke (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused file, redundant to File:Coat of arms of Romania (1952–1965).svg ColorfulSmoke (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploader requested. The correct version exists under the older File:IE road sign WK–061.svg. Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by User:Bposzkus

[edit]

This is a one-person performance in some art gallery of a small city of Villa María in Argentina; the performance was a part of the concert of local ephemeral rock band. Neither the band nor the performer are of any significance. The pictures themselves are of no special interest as well. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Can't see how this is usable for our projects. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It's not used copy of TimedText:1961-04-13 Tale Of Century - Eichmann Tried For War Crimes.ogv.en.srt that is other type of files: vtt. Pacha Tchernof (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pacha Tchernof: Do you think it is redundant? They are not identical. Is either clearly better? Are both historic, or either or both made for Commons? –LPfi (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi, yes, I do, because the nominated file has the .vtt format, and as it is known, the TimedText namespace is supporting only .srt (SubRip). Yes, they are not identical — now, but several time ago they were. The original .srt file was created on September 13, 2013. I edited its last version from February 14, 2015 to the current verson on October 31, 2021. The nominated to deletion copy .vtt file was created on August 27, 2020, it wasn't used from that time until I encounter it while updating all the closed captions files for that video: that means, in Portuguese, in Finnish, in Spanish, and, as already mentionned, in English. I suppose, the anonymus user experimented with closed captions file formats on Commons and left it as-is — with no use and rare possibility to find it. — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! --Missvain (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Non-free content visible herein (Windows 7 Aero theme) ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The only other MongoDB screenshot in Category:MongoDB is File:Robomongo 0.8.5 - insertion.png, which has the same problem. But at least this one can be easily cropped to avoid the problem. Brianjd (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Doesn't look like anyone cares enough to crop this version. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No indication that this is indeed a work by {{Tasnim}}. A link to the webpage containing the image, as opposed to a direct link to the image itself, should be provided. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: new source provided, passes COM:LR. --P 1 9 9   01:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image in not an original work of {{Tasnim}}. Per this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Agree with nom's assessment. This image is all over Google Images and it appers shady that it is an original work of the source provided. Copy vio - We can always undelete if COM:VRT is provided and approved. Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

image contains other images that do not have an appropriate license Epipelagic (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The main citation given is:
[2] doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00097
But I cannot find this image in that article to begin with. I also looked up the first article in the list:
Barroso, Á., Landwerth, S., Woerdemann, M., Alpmann, C., Buscher, T., Becker, M., et al. (2015). Optical assembly of bio-hybrid micro-robots. Biomed. Microdevices 17, 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10544-015-9933-1
I scanned the images from this article, and compared them with this image, but saw no connection.
What am I missing? Brianjd (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Please provide proof that the collage images are copyright violations. If one wishes to renominate this file with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Изображение кораблей не соответсвует конструктивным особенностям кораблям Ф.Ф.Ушакова. Подготавливается новая исправленная версия картины реконструкции событий. Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Изображение кораблей не соответсвует конструктивным особенностям кораблям Ф.Ф.Ушакова. Подготавливается новая исправленная версия картины реконструкции событий. Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:POSTER in Verbindung mit COM:TOO, COM:DM und COM:FOP. See:- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Plakate_Bundestagswahl_in_Deutschland_-_&_Werbeplakate_in_Deutschland Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Eine politische Partei missbraucht das Bild! Falko Sieker (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not a reason to delete it. Are there other problems? Or could we perhaps give advice on the problem – which requires a clearer description of it. –LPfi (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - If one wishes to renominate this file with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. Happy holidays. --Missvain (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

есть лучшее изображение Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

есть лучшее изображение Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

есть лучшее изображение Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

есть лучшее изображение Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

есть лучшее изображение Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

есть лучшее изображение Kosov vladimir 09071967 (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

l'artiste n'est pas dans le domaine public (pas mort) Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

has been replaced by .svg Emilius123 (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I added {{Vector version available}}. Brianjd (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Contractor report by "Science Applications International Corporation", 2000 publication date. This is not necessarily PD-US-Gov as claimed, as the contractors cannot be considered to be "federal" employees.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • The content of the “report document page” makes me believe that this report is PD-USGov. The page has a box for classification status (this is “unclassified”) and other boxes that would be unnecessary for solely private work. This leads me to believe that SAIC was doing this work fully under the auspices of the federal government, and not for any non-governmental purpose. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE}}. --Rosenzweig τ 20:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Erronous publication date. Volume post-dates 1964, and thus would have been renewed automatically. Images also nominated as most likely being from the volume concerned

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Rosenzweig τ 20:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Chingaaribera (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No permission, date is wrong.

Afifa Afrin (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep the following photographs. The subjects died more than 50 years ago, so these must be in the public domain per {{PD-India}} (as it relies on creation date) and before 1947, so they are also in the PD in the US per {{PD-1996}}.
File:বিপ্লবী রহিনীরজ্ঞন বড়ুয়া.jpg
File:শহীদ রামকৃষ্ণ চক্রবর্তী.jpg
File:রামকৃষ্ণ চক্রবর্তী.jpg
File:শহীদ স্বদেশরঞ্জন রায়.jpg
File:শহীদ দেবপ্রসাদ গুপ্ত.jpg
File:শহীদ কানাইলাল ভট্টাচার্য.jpg
File:বিপ্লবী লাল মোহন সেন.jpg
File:Martyr Sukhdev.jpg
File:বিপ্লবী প্রদ্যোত ভট্টাচার্য.jpg
File:বিপ্লবী সাতকড়ি বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়.jpg
File:বিপ্লবী দীনেশ গুপ্ত.jpg
File:বিপ্লবী বিনয় বসু.jpg
File:বিপ্লবী বাদল গুপ্ত.jpg
File:শহীদ সন্তোষ কুমার মিত্র.jpg
File:বিপ্লবী তারকেশ্বর সেনগুপ্ত.jpg
File:বীর বিপ্লবী যোদ্ধা যতীন মুখার্জী.jpg
 Delete the rest. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What IronGargoyle said, Same opinion আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and discussion those that hadn't been already kept. --Rosenzweig τ 22:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The template has been abused, and the legal provisions do not clearly indicate that such flags are prohibited. K.Y.K.Z.K. (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

第二十六条 以侮辱、诽谤或者其他方式侵害英雄烈士的姓名、肖像、名誉、荣誉,损害社会公共利益的,依法承担民事责任;构成违反治安管理行为的,由公安机关依法给予治安管理处罚;构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任。

@Ewan0707 and Midleading: thoughts? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no consensus for deletion. --Ellywa (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]